In the last month this Board has had two threads on circumcision that should be removed. In both cases, an original poster asked a question about circumcision. After receiving a few responses, a group, whether coordinated or not, swamped the threads with strong statements of advocacy – in this case, against any circumcision. One of our established members, Sera, did some wonderful investigative reports on who these people were and what they seemed to stand for. She actually traced some of them through other boards where they used the same terminology and made the same arguments – in some cases abusive. Their primary argument was based upon Australia banning automatic circumcision of newborns. That was a political decision recognizing the feelings of the aboriginal population of Australia.
This is a pattern of advocacy that has been seen on other Boards with other topics. The German national medical system Board had a section on Gardasil information. A woman posted the following (loosely translated): “I have decided to have my 13 yo daughter inoculated against HPV. Can anyone tell me what to expect?” This original post seemed innocuous and was responded to by a doctor and several nurse’s wityh good information – mostly posted elsewhere on the board. Then an anti-inoculation group swooped in and hijacked the thread. They cited every problem medication the manufacturer had ever produced; cited every vaccine that had ever caused illness; ignored differences and ranted against all vaccination. The thread was removed.
The circumcision posts on this board suffered similar attack. There is some misleading and, even, completely wrong “data” posted. To read the some of the posts, it sounds like circumcision is disappearing throughout the world. In actual fact, there are more infants circumcised today than in any previous years. There are more mature men seeking circumcision, for a variety of reasons, than ever.
I am pro-circumcision for reasons posted in many threads. There are valid arguments against circumcision without specific cause and I recognize them. The blatant falsehoods and specious research cited on the threads from Hugh7, Vikingirl and their ilk have no reason to be on this (or any) Board and I ask that those threads be removed.
[QUOTE=sera300;218456]Going beyond the obvious topics which are discussed on this thread to date; what are the more salient issues which the public may not be aware of regarding foreskin? Skip religion, culture, disease, etc. What are people not aware of? Now I am curious.[/QUOTE]Well, the ancient Greeks prized it, giving a name to the overhang (akroposthion), to a shortage of foreskin (lipodermos) and to those who suffered from that (leipodermos). They treated lipodermos by herbs, traction or surgery.
Commenting on this, Gabriele Falloppio (1523-62, discoverer of the fallopian tubes) observed[QUOTE]What is done for appearance contributes also to generation and to greater pleasure therein; for the part is not itself lubricate if it has no foreskin, and yet in the venereal act it requires notable lubricity.[/QUOTE]
For centuries, before medical circumcision became commonplace, it was common knowledge that the foreskin gives pleasure.
[QUOTE][The penis'] highest part is called the glans [acorn] and the head of the penis. There it is compact, hard and dull to sensation so that it may not be injured in coitus. A certain soft skin surrounds this glans, it is called the prepuce, obedient to reversion [turning back] at any rubbing. This prepuce in the lower part in the middle only along its length is attached the larger part of the glans by a certain pellicular member vulgarly called "the little thread" [il filello]. … The functions of the prepuce and of the little skin … are to furnish some delight in coitus and to guard the glans from external harm. The Hebrews do away with the prepuce in circumcisions, thus operating against the intent of nature.
[RIGHT]Jacopo Berengario da Carpi (c. 1460-1530)[/RIGHT][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The circumcised are affected with less pleasure in coitus because the membrane is thickened and sensation blunted.
[RIGHT]William Harvey (1578-1657), who discovered the circulation of the blood[/RIGHT][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Circumcision detracts somewhat from the delight of women by lessening their titillation.
[RIGHT]John Bulwer, 17th Century[/RIGHT][/QUOTE]
Prof. John Taylor discovered the ridged band in which the most sensitive nerves are concentrated. Sorrells et al. are so far the only researchers to investigate the sensitivity of the foreskin itself.
And I always like this remark by a New Zealander on a 2001 TV documentary called "The Naked Penis". You may have to play it more than once to catch what he says.
Having a better understanding of what you wish to accomplish in the US is why I recommended a court of law and gaining political support against the procedure. Why? The politicians and lobbyist move much faster than changing a Medical System which seems to be already changing partially in the US it's stance.
The US medical system & insurance companies are in such disarray in the US; they rarely wish to cover any procedure and due to costs are cutting back what they do & what they pay for. I cannot tell you how much I have paid out of pocket for medical treatment and yet pay a small fortune monthly for insurance which is a good carrier as well.
I have attempted to view the video but am having difficulty; much more easily done at home for me. I have no issue with not having it done, I do not believe people should so anything based on religion, etc. They need to stop & think for themselves.
It sounds as if you have formed a Non-profit organization to date. Have you filed for status?
My first reaction when I read through the threads & dismissed the child issue claiming there are greater issue to worry about is for one reason. In the US, we cannot stop people from beating their children to death. After one of the worst child abuse turned homicide case I had ever seen. I left medicine for a year. Therefore, when I prodded your issue this was why. Parents cannot stop beatings & in some areas the wrong people propagate.
Agreed. This is a sex board not once laced with political agendas! If one practices Medicine they shall find Practitioners are bound by regs. Therefore, changing US or NHS regs should be done through their political agendas. Treat enough infections and deal with public lack of knowledge of their own bodies and one may feel different..watch a good friend die of HIV or C. Cancer...might effectuate change in views. In the US, the burden falls on the parental figure.
I vote to keep the anti-circumcision rally... Lets get this barbaric rite in perspective: You are taking a blade to a infant child's sexual organs!
As far as I know, there are two main reasons for this... tradition; mainly religious... and health; reducing likelihood of contracting an std through the permeable skin found in the foreskin...
In terms of tradition... there is one word to describe anyone doing this for religious reasons: Sheeple. I'd expand on this, but don't really feel like listening to the backlash of their ridiculous nonsense!
In terms of circumcision being a wise thing for health, here are some other remedies you may want to consider:
Avoid problems with your wrist and hand with a simple cut right through the forearm!
Avoid problems with your knee and foot with a simple cut right through the thigh!
heck, avoid ALL medical issues with a simple cut right through your neck! - works great for arthritis, and anything else you may be suffering from!
Ranting aside, I have one friend who CHOSE this operation... he found that his foreskin tended to rip from rough sex, and then cause great discomfort healing... This man felt he needed it, and he chose to have it when he was 16...
Doesn't that sound nice? Giving a person the freaking ability to choose whats best for their own body?
Special notes to Brandye:
- Please be consistent with your views... Support butchering all children, girls included, or none.
- Be careful about what you read in your medical textbooks and journals, a lot more of it is propaganda then you might think.
- Please do the men of the next generation a favor and leave the weak minds of their parents alone.
One more note, to both of you two... correct me if i've made a bad assumption, but:
Don't you think its messed up that you are promoting an operation to a part of the body that you don't have????!!!!?!!?!?!
Your time would be better spent teaching parents how to take care of their child... not supporting barbarism that makes it easier!
This is a *surprisingly* controversial subject, and it should be treated like the others (politics, religion, etc). Each person has their own views and responsibilities, and NOBODY, I mean NOBODY has the right to tell someone they are wrong (or right?) about their beliefs. I'm talking to both sides. This isn't something so simple as saying "drinking too much soda make you fat", this is a decision that CHANGES your body. No one but the person himself should have the right to decide, either way, for whatever things are important to him.
I agree it can be a medical benefit. I also agree it can be inhumane. On that note, I am neutral and I think it depends highly on the situation and lifestyle. Some of the posts may be taking it too far Brandye, but it is still THEIR opinion. You have no right to trash their opinion, and BigKahuna you have no right to trash hers, because they are the beliefs of one person and it will always be disputed.
/sends out peace vibes :)
[quote=curious_woman;217446]This is a *surprisingly* controversial subject, and it should be treated like the others (politics, religion, etc). Each person has their own views and responsibilities, and NOBODY, I mean NOBODY has the right to tell someone they are wrong (or right?) about their beliefs. I'm talking to both sides. This isn't something so simple as saying "drinking too much soda make you fat", this is a decision that CHANGES your body. No one but the person himself should have the right to decide, either way, for whatever things are important to him.
I agree it can be a medical benefit. I also agree it can be inhumane. On that note, I am neutral and I think it depends highly on the situation and lifestyle. Some of the posts may be taking it too far Brandye, but it is still THEIR opinion. You have no right to trash their opinion, and BigKahuna you have no right to trash hers, because they are the beliefs of one person and it will always be disputed.
/sends out peace vibes :)[/quote]
Curious...We only inform individuals in the medical profession. If a parent forces it on their children it's the parent's right in the US. If men learned to wrap their penis and women were more responsible with their vagina...disease would not spread. Heck why not wait until your wedding night and abstain...that will prevent all disease right?
Or do the other's expect me to toss myself in front of the Doc & parent and hold the cut? I am bound to inform.
[QUOTE]Each person has their own views and responsibilities, and NOBODY, I mean NOBODY has the right to tell someone they are wrong (or right?) about their beliefs.[/QUOTE]
- I consider this rubbish... Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs as long as they don't create victims. This barbaric rite has victims.
[QUOTE]This isn't something so simple as saying "drinking too much soda make you fat",[/QUOTE]
- How is not that simple? You have babies being cut with a knife... they are obviously not happy about it when it is happening...
[QUOTE]You have no right to trash their opinion[/QUOTE]
- So the next time I see a man beating up his wife, I should stop myself from thinking that BRUTE is wrong, and not trash his opinion that hurting her is ok because i have to respect his right to hold this opinion?
[QUOTE]sends out peace vibes[/QUOTE]
- Send your peace vibes to all the baby boys out there who are in a state of shock from the pain caused by the nonsense that's being promoted by people like this doctor...
[QUOTE]it will always be disputed.[/QUOTE]
- Sorry to hate on this too... but BS! there was a time before this butchering was performed... so whats with the assumption that its going to stay forever...
OK, Kahuna, I agree there is a possible responsible debate. Post reasonable and supportable views and we can agree or disagree. I am here objecting to the two threads that are filled with nonsense and posted by a group (perhaps of one with different names) with a clear agenda. The clarity of their anti- agenda is made by the sites and boards where they use exactly the same limited studies, exactly the same words and their attributing their tactics to other known entities at this Board.
So, Kahuna, put your emotions aside and tell us what you know. I can respect that whether or not it results in agreement. I just hope this is not so soon that Hugh and friends return and continue their irrational rants.
[quote=BigKahuna;217445]One more note, to both of you two... correct me if i've made a bad assumption, but:
Don't you think its messed up that you are promoting an operation to a part of the body that you don't have????!!!!?!!?!?!
Your time would be better spent teaching parents how to take care of their child... not supporting barbarism that makes it easier![/quote] Yes, we do teach parents and grown men how to clean...too bad they fail to. Cut a body part? Not my choice--it's PARENTAL & INFORMED CHOICE in the US. Heck, best part was when the wandering husband failed to use a condom and spread his g/f's HPV to the wife..the punch biopsy's were very traumatizing should there be some right there?
[quote=Brandye;217449]OK, Kahuna, I agree there is a possible responsible debate. Post reasonable and supportable views and we can agree or disagree. I am here objecting to the two threads that are filled with nonsense and posted by a group (perhaps of one with different names) with a clear agenda. The clarity of their anti- agenda is made by the sites and boards where they use exactly the same limited studies, exactly the same words and their attributing their tactics to other known entities at this Board.
So, Kahuna, put your emotions aside and tell us what you know. I can respect that whether or not it results in agreement. I just hope this is not so soon that Hugh and friends return and continue their irrational rants.[/quote]
Search Facebook...you will find much out about the prostitution followed by same rhetoric as the "other" posters. An attempt to support a young males "lifestyle" which is less than ethical.
[QUOTE]I am here objecting to the two threads that are filled with nonsense and posted by a group (perhaps of one with different names) with a clear agenda.[/QUOTE]
- Can you see the irony in your effort? Circumcision was brought onto this world mainly by two books created by some groups with an agenda...
[QUOTE]So, Kahuna, put your emotions aside and tell us what you know. I can respect that whether or not it results in agreement.[/QUOTE]
The case is pretty simple...
Babies are being cut with a knife... their genitals mutilated, and its pretty clear that they are not happy about it.In many places, there is still no anesthesia being used, putting the babies through incredible pain... and even in places it is... its drugging babies for unnecessary surgery... causing even more potential damage to our kids while taking away medical resources from people who need them.
Since anyone who wants to remove it can choose for themselves to do so later in life;
Why are we putting kids / allowing kids to go through such trauma?
Why are we not avoiding unnecessary surgery for ourselves and the system?
Why are we allowing religion to get in the way of common sense?
Why would we use anesthesia on such young children if we could avoid it?
Why is male circumcision ok, and female circumcision not ok? (they have their reasons for doing it to!)
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Circumcision is a very emotional topic, so it is hard to have a logical academic debate about it. I have to criticize both sides about how they acted. Even you Brandye, you used your fare share of fallacies and slanted language. I don’t know if you should delete the thread, but the debate should be over (Kahuna). Also, am I one of the people on your hit list?[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
[quote=BigKahuna;217459]- Can you see the irony in your effort? Circumcision was brought onto this world mainly by two books created by some groups with an agenda...
The case is pretty simple...
Babies are being cut with a knife... their genitals mutilated, and its pretty clear that they are not happy about it.In many places, there is still no anesthesia being used, putting the babies through incredible pain... and even in places it is... its drugging babies for unnecessary surgery... causing even more potential damage to our kids while taking away medical resources from people who need them.
***Topical anesthesia is not an issue. How would a baby know they are not happy about it when 2 days old. Using non-topical is barbaric.
Since anyone who wants to remove it can choose for themselves to do so later in life;
***Do you believe a young man [teen] can make such choice after becoming sexually active and contracting a disease they may not be aware they carry?
Why are we putting kids / allowing kids to go through such trauma?
***Babies are traumatized?
Why are we not avoiding unnecessary surgery for ourselves and the system?
***Perhaps people trust medical opinions too much such as obesity causing Gallbladder disease and have no choice since diet was so poor due to lack of knowledge/care for their bodies?
Why are we allowing religion to get in the way of common sense?
***Religion? No issue in the US.
Why would we use anesthesia on such young children if we could avoid it?
***They also cut their faces and require anesthesia for sutures. Holding them down to skip the use is barbaric.
Why is male circumcision ok, and female circumcision not ok? (they have their reasons for doing it to!)[/quote]
***Why circumcise a woman? What is the benefit? I suggest if parental education is instituted there should be no such need since women suffer the outcome of disease--men harbor HPV without symptoms; meanwhile, women have Genital warts. When women void we "wipe" and cause friction...men just shake their penis off. Personal opinions & observations only. Being "cut" is not mandatory.
[QUOTE]***Topical anesthesia is not an issue. How would a baby know they are not happy about it when 2 days old. Using non-topical is barbaric.[/QUOTE]
How would a baby know? Listen to him scream when they cut. From the numbers I've seen, a very significant percentage of circumcisions happen without.
[QUOTE]***Do you believe a young man [teen] can make such choice after becoming sexually active and contracting a disease they may not be aware they carry?[/QUOTE]
holy propaganda batman!
You can contract an std without foreskin for starters...
what does having an std have to do with making the decision?
[QUOTE]***Babies are traumatized?[/QUOTE]
This isn't even worth replying to... are you really that.....?
[QUOTE]***Perhaps people trust medical opinions too much such as obesity causing Gallbladder disease and have no choice since diet was so poor due to lack of knowledge/care for their bodies?[/QUOTE]
Again with the statements that don't make any sense... The foreskin has a purpose... removing it to avoid possible problems is like cutting off people's feet to prevent athletes foot... would it work? YES... is it a good way to deal with athletes foot? Only if you are nuts...
[QUOTE]***Religion? No issue in the US.[/QUOTE]
Not to get away from the focus here, but this clearly shows your delusion... they are trying to teach freaking intelligent design as science in the classrooms... and you think religion is not an issue in the US... good grief...
[QUOTE]***They also cut their faces and require anesthesia for sutures. Holding them down to skip the use is barbaric.[/QUOTE]
Again with crazy talk... all i have to say is WHAT?!?!
[QUOTE]***Why circumcise a woman? What is the benefit? [/QUOTE]
you want a reason, here's one: it would be that much less skin to possibly get skin cancer on...
[QUOTE]I suggest if parental education is instituted there should be no such need since women suffer the outcome of disease--men harbor HPV without symptoms; meanwhile, women have Genital warts. When women void we "wipe" and cause friction...men just shake their penis off. Personal opinions & observations only. Being "cut" is not mandatory.[/QUOTE]
Just to clarify, you want all men to have their penis cut so that women have a lower chance of getting HPV?
There are better ways to avoid an std then cutting off part of the penis in the small chance it helps. The best way is to choose your partners carefully...
Look, I was just trying to put a neutral thought because everyone else here is chewing each others heads off. Personally, if I have a son he will NOT be circumsized. BUT he will be taught to use protection and clean himself, minimizing the risks of infection. BK I understand your concerns but your comments are quite out of line, relating what I said to abuse is totally out of context. Not all who are circumsized consider themselves "victims" as you put it. As I said I was trying to be neutral, yet you flamed me even more than Brandye. Apparently there is something more I'm missing?
- A nephew of mine was circumcised recently... so their is some built up frustration... Children are getting their genitals mutilated... and its additionally frustrating to see requests for censorship of people fighting it.
- The example used was harsh... but it points out the hypocrisy effectively...
- You don't have to know you are a victim of something to be one.
- My discussion/debate with Brandye had just started... and you wanted to silence it with hypocrisy... you don't have to read the thread if you don't like it...
BigK:
It's not mandatory in the US. If a male is left intact, parents cleansed their male sons properly, taught them how to retract the foreskin to eliminate smegma & disease build up, taught them proper sex ed rather than ignoring the topic, there would be no issue. Same with teaching of females regarding proper hygiene [no Snicker bars inserted into a vagina, etc.].
However, in Medical practice people FAIL to talk to their children & teens about proper care & safe sex.
Same with elderly men, they like to think they are cleansing well...the garbage I have removed is frankly gross. Same with elderly women who wreak of urine.
Many matters could be eliminated if such was taught openly. When practicing medicine, you might [or might not] be surprised as to what people do. Circumcision is elective...the talk needs to go to the parents & not to medical personnel who "fix" medical problems.
Same with pregnancy, how not to become pregnant seems to be another matter which is ignored or non-issue to certain people. 14 y/o girls with 1-2 children, no jobs, living off generational welfare is not acceptable.
[quote=BigKahuna;217480]How would a baby know? Listen to him scream when they cut. From the numbers I've seen, a very significant percentage of circumcisions happen without.
***Where I am it's used. I held my nephew for the elective procedure. Choose the doc carefully. I would question the docs who did the ones you watched. I read the consents for my nephew...they were very detailed pro/con. I went with him to ensure it was done as stated. Ever see the pain a teen or older man has? That is traumatic! If I were a man, I doubt I would do it as an adult. I would hate my parents for not doing it at 2 days old.
holy propaganda batman!
You can contract an std without foreskin for starters...
what does having an std have to do with making the decision?
****Smegma & bacteria harbors diseases often without symptoms for the man who is not cut. Agreed yes cut men can get similar diseases but less incidences--poor sex practices are to blame and women who allow no condoms are equally at blame.
This isn't even worth replying to... are you really that.....?
****Really that what? Not a Medical practitioner? Or ignorant?
Again with the statements that don't make any sense... The foreskin has a purpose... removing it to avoid possible problems is like cutting off people's feet to prevent athletes foot... would it work? YES... is it a good way to deal with athletes foot? Only if you are nuts...
***Demonstrated by Medical professionals removing the foreskin does reduce risks. Proper sex ed is needed in the US.
Not to get away from the focus here, but this clearly shows your delusion... they are trying to teach freaking intelligent design as science in the classrooms... and you think religion is not an issue in the US... good grief...
****No, not a religious issue in the US. People are beginning to THINK before they make an informed consent. Delusional? Sorry, no. Try treating yourself for Sepsis or ARDS. I have "over-rode" religious beliefs such as no blood transfusions or surgery if it's life threatening under implied consent. Religion? Want me to open a window or door for a dying person to "free the soul" fine...I'll do it. Cut for religion? Nope, since it's not a life saving measure--again parental, informed consent in the US. I must abide by these parental wishes or lose my license. Additionally I am Catholic...and do not believe personally in the Catholic teachings...no premarital sex? I don't believe in such teachings or in abstinence.
Again with crazy talk... all i have to say is WHAT?!?!
All I can say; if one does not like the system effectuate change.
****Lack of words? We have to follow parental informed consent.
you want a reason, here's one: it would be that much less skin to possibly get skin cancer on...
Just to clarify, you want all men to have their penis cut so that women have a lower chance of getting HPV?
***Have HPV see how much fun it is because men go outside of marriage and get "stupid happy" & think with their penis and bring a disease home to a wife...many diseases.
There are better ways to avoid an std then cutting off part of the penis in the small chance it helps. The best way is to choose your partners carefully...[/quote]
MUCH AGREED. It's a blast when the spouse has some fun on the side, lies, and then you are sick and loose a child.
TOO bad his penis did not fall off! And there was a time these people were ethical.
Hang out in a VD clinic & an ER you would be shocked at what people do to themselves and partners. Stat's are collected by the DOH for reasons. This also includes "self-mutilation" for sexual satisfaction--all types. SOme women think for a diaphragm "jelly" can be spermicidal OR Schmucker's [sp?] Grape!
[QUOTE]MUCH AGREED. It's a blast when the spouse has some fun on the side, lies, and then you are sick and loose a child.
TOO bad his penis did not fall off! And there was a time these people were ethical.[/QUOTE]
you have some serious issues...
[quote=BigKahuna;217488]you have some serious issues...[/quote]
No, he had serious issues. Disease and child out of wedlock. Now, he gets to pay for his mistake on her (not to me)! I went through the abnormal Paps, Punch BX, Endometrial BX, and now a return of severe dysplasia. Laser surgery & Cryo. for me due to his lack of intelligence and his thinking with the wrong head. Additionally, I lost my child at 4 1/2 months--alone. Married to the idiot for many years...
I believe your user name says it all; over blown ego? Note mine?
I can only add, that I was "cut" at two days old and it took me a year before I could walk again!!:)
[quote=HardNgood;217492]I can only add, that I was "cut" at two days old and it took me a year before I could walk again!!:)[/quote]
You can try to "sue" your parents! :) But then again walking is done at over one year old! :)
I originally came to this board for relationship advice. Wouldn't have considered myself a "net guerrilla" by any means. However, it is clear now, that at sexinfo101.com there is strong prejudice against men who advocate the right for a baby to have their genitals untouched by a surgeons blade (Or those who oppose any advice by Brandye specifically). To demonstrate how disgusted I am with the fact that two specific self proclaimed medical professionals act as though this site is a fascist rule dictated from themselves, I am leaving this site permanently. Good riddance to all it's non-sense and prejudice.
[quote=fassol;217500]I originally came to this board for relationship advice. Wouldn't have considered myself a "net guerrilla" by any means. However, it is clear now, that at sexinfo101.com there is strong prejudice against men who advocate the right for a baby to have their genitals untouched by a surgeons blade (Or those who oppose any advice by Brandye specifically). To demonstrate how disgusted I am with the fact that two specific self proclaimed medical professionals act as though this site is a fascist rule dictated from themselves, I am leaving this site permanently. Good riddance to all it's non-sense and prejudice.[/quote] Fassol--Have a nice day & good luck with your relationship issues. Best of wishes to you & your nurse...remember no sneaking in!
I don't see the big deal. If your cut, you are, if you're not then you are not. Stop crying, its hardly a big deal. BK, you make it seem like this is so horrible poeple should riot in the streets. They are not being "mutilated" they are having surgery beneficial to their health. If they don't like it, O freakin well, not to many poeple are gonna see it anyways. I am cut, and I am more then happy with that. I am not a victim. I think its more attractive to be cut anways, gives you some shape. Maybe even gives the girl more stimulation during sex? (dunno about that)
This is just my opinion.
[QUOTE=sera300;217506]Fassol--Have a nice day & good luck with your relationship issues. Best of wishes to you & your nurse...remember no sneaking in![/QUOTE]
I had to respond to this. First thanks for the well wishes if they truly are sincere. After all, heated debates in one area do not mean I cannot be civil regarding another topic. I no longer have issues, however. Which is one reason also why I'm taking my leave now. I did have one issue and now it's all better thanks to yours and Doc2's advice. :)
I did bring up me sneaking in, however. After she mentioned that I should, I said that I had already thought about it. She gave me the password for her house, and I have snuck in twice already for cuddling and an afternoon romp. It was a ton of fun. :D
Regards,
-F-
I'm not an expert and I don't claim to be, but is "...taking a blade to an infant child's sexual organs," really any more "devastating" than cutting the umbilical cord? This is not an attack, but an honest question.
I think if this issue is ever going to be discussed in a civil manner the participants should stick to hard facts (reputable sources are nice). There is no need to get emotional or throw insults around. Going down a list of a person's comments and saying the comments are all ludicrous won't get anyone anywhere. Not only does this not present any new information to our community, but it's a prime example of juvenile behavior.
Female circumcision was brought up in this thread, and I wanted to go ahead and make an attempt to explain a little bit about this. I'm sure someone more qualified will fill in with a more detailed explanation, but I'll try at the least. The reasons for it being done vary from culture to culture, but it typically is done as a rite of passage for girls reaching womanhood. Women in these cultures cannot marry within their cultures without being circumcised, and as a consequence many who are aware of the risks and consequences are pressured into having the procedure performed. However, the number of women within these cultures that are opposed to the practice is steadily rising. Often times the circumcisions can result in life-long pain during sexual play or during daily life, many young girls/women die from blood loss shortly after the procedure, and the poor conditions under which the circumcisions are often performed result in various infections that can plague these young girls/women. This is vastly different from male circumcision, simply because male circumcision doesn't carry the inherent risks associated with female circumcision. Not only that, but I can't see how female circumcision has any benefit to hygiene, unlike it's male counterpart. Again, I'm no expert so if someone has any evidence that contradicts what I have written here, then I will happily stand corrected. However, what I have written is not based on political motives, cultural standards of beauty, etc. Therefore, any arguments based on anything other than medical facts have nothing to do with what I have said.
As for myself, I have weighed the pro's and con's of male circumcision and knowing what I know I'm very happy to be cut. However, as has been said before both arguments have their merits. Different strokes for different folks, eh?
Oh man...I thought this thread was to talk about the fanatics coming on this board and making personal attack over something. I mean a man asks why circumsision isnt pushed as much and some advice about making a choice to get it or not...
What happens, a million people show up calling doctors out and saying they are not real doctors since they are advocating something, trying to act all intelligent by pointing out fallacies...
Now the same thing is happening. Brandye isnt bashing anti circ groups...she is bashing the ones who are like the peta demonstrators who dump paint on fur clothing. Rather than be civil and discuss things like an adult these people show up trashing other peoples opinions and acting like they are the most intelligent and correct people.
I agree with you brandye these threads should be removed because they do not answer the OP's question, but rather bash the op and tell them whats "right"
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]I have stated my position an infant circumcision and I am done with this debate. However I wanted to say something about female genital mutilation. Female circumcision (genital mutilation) refers to one of two things. The first is the removal of the prepuce of the clitoral glands. It is preformed it some high class regions of Middle Eastern and African countries. The prepuce of the clitoris can be related to the foreskin of the male; however it serves more of a prepuce in the female because of the extreme [FONT=Times New Roman]relative[/FONT] sensitivity of the clitoris. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]The second is the removal of the entire clitoris. Unfortunately this is a far more common procedure in these countries. It causes sever sexual dysfunction in these women, often resulting in the inability to reach orgasm and even be properly aroused. This procedure has been deemed mutilation and a human rights violation by the United Nations. This is mostly just me paraphrasing my human sexuality text book. You can not compare it with male circumcision and I am against infant male circumcision. [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Sorry about being off topic, but I felt I had to say it. I agree with what Ducy said and I will shut up now. [/SIZE][/FONT]
If either of those thread were deleted, I would consider it censorship, pure and simple. In my opinion, both you and sera300 have swamped circumcision threads in the past with "strong statements of advocacy", and have posted misleading data, yet I wouldn't ask for those threads to be deleted.
The anti-circumcision case is not based solely on Australian opposition to neonatal circumcision (though I consider it a powerful argument that the medical organisations there are so against the practice, despite almost every Australian man over 40 being circumcised). I also posted the position statements of the AAP, CPS, and BMA. Surely those are relevant, and whether you consider me biased or not, they have to be worth reading.
"Blatant falsehoods and specious research". "Nonsense".
I very much disagree.
it sounds like circumcision is disappearing throughout the world. In actual fact, there are more infants circumcised today than in any previous years.
I challenge you to back that up. If you can't, I will consider it a "blatant falsehood". The circumcision rate has certainly dropped significantly in the USA, Canada, the UK, and Australia.
I agree with you Ducy, Clever, sera somepoints. I think some of these points made are *very* immature and taking the point a little too far. On that note, I'm done with this thread because there are a few...who refuse to become un-blinded by the sh!t in front of them. Its useless trying to explain my opinion when its just shot down.
Have a nice day all :).
[quote=fassol;217512]I had to respond to this. First thanks for the well wishes if they truly are sincere. After all, heated debates in one area do not mean I cannot be civil regarding another topic. I no longer have issues, however. Which is one reason also why I'm taking my leave now. I did have one issue and now it's all better thanks to yours and Doc2's advice. :)
I did bring up me sneaking in, however. After she mentioned that I should, I said that I had already thought about it. She gave me the password for her house, and I have snuck in twice already for cuddling and an afternoon romp. It was a ton of fun. :D
Regards,
-F-[/quote]
Glad it worked out & yes meant and asked honestly out of wonder.
Bad debate style shouldn't bar anyone regardless of their stance. I should hope we don't live in a dictatorship. Full disclosure: I advocate against cutting any body parts from unconsenting minors. As a cut male, I have studied this topic with the goal of informing the public through writing and speaking about the harms I believe it has caused me. I am in process on a book about this, and believe with a little accurate education, people can understand more clearly the range of issues relevant here: physical, ethical, legal, psychological and societal. It has far-reaching impacts that, while understood by a broad and diverse base, have not been clearly discussed. It is my belief that the two primary obstacles we have are some lingering sexual unease in public discourse and an intractable medical profession whose bias has effectively blunted their capacity for cogent thought on the matter; only secondarily is the issue of money obtained through cutting in that profession pertinent to their reasons for desiring status quo. Financial incentive, however may be driving the larger pushes on the part of the immense corporations whose pro-cutting stance benefits their bottom line, as infant foreskins are extremely valuable for generating new skin as well as other grown biologics.
Overall I suggest we elevate the debate, and that both sides do their reading. For me, it has been about 15 years, and I find I am still learning, primarily through symposia materials, doctors, psychologists, and not through mass media.
Sometimes the truth is not a clean geometry, lying equidistant between two points. Sometimes truth lies clearly outside such equations.
Andre Maranhao
Aston, PA
June 2008
Hey, elevate the debate is a great concept-if it can STAY elevated. But true debate has no place for personal attacks. The two strings Brandye suggests removing (and I agree) go on for pages upon pages, with several people personally attacking those who disagree. I think if we dust off our Psych 1 notes, and flip to the page on BF Skinner and Behaviorism, we'll find those discussions under 'Reinforcement'. Personal attack begets personal attack, and the point of the debate gets lost.
Oh my god...censorship...you really wanna talk about censorship. Guess what. This forum is a public forum but the peopple who run it (Mod I II and III) all own it. They pay for the web space they pay with their time and money that they had to invest to create so technically it is a "public" privately owned website..
They can do whatever the hell they want. Your rights end where anothers begin. Your right to speak and be heard ends at their delete button because in this forum the mods are god, buddah and mel gibson.
And these posts are not being advocated for deletion because they dont like what the other advocating for, its because it is a bunch of children bickering, not adults discussing matters as adults.
I will admit, at the risk of someone showing up and complaining, some of the posts in the threads are just ridiculous. They do show some intelligence behind their debate, stating the death rates of failed circumsisions and such. But rather than use all the facts (Like the exact odds of someone who gets a screwed up cut, or what the exact causes that lead to complications such as an inexp doc or a crappy hosptial) They just decide to show the "side effects" and they then go on to do silly arguements like desensitized.
Thats not an arguement. Thats like saying I dont like wearing condoms cuz they desensitize me. BFD show me a true blue arguement that is supported by fact. Dont show me this crap about sensitivity or cosmetic
I'm having a lot of trouble understanding how this is even a topic for debate... and I'm waiting for the pro-cutting side to come up with something that isn't completely bogus... The non-side wants babies left alone... the pro side wants to cut the babies... consequently the burden of proof here rests on their shoulders...
This is rather sick and twisted religious tradition survived much longer then it ever should have, and now we have a medical profession backing it because a few biased studies claim its good... I guess that shows you what our medical community is worth.
Seriously... how are we even talking about the medical benefits of such barbarism? Again, cutting off limbs prevents all the problems related to those extremities, and none of those procedures are given any consideration as wise! The foreskin is not a birth defect... it is a part of the body that developed with a purpose. Sure, it serves as a bit of an Achilles heal, but call that nature's way of reminding all of us that we shouldn't be having sex with so many partners.
Picture series showing the festivities: http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/plastibell.htm
Video: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x41r3c_american-baby-circumcision-news-...
[QUOTE]Its useless trying to explain my opinion when its just shot down. [/QUOTE]
Your opinions get shot down because they are not well thought out. Instead of giving up, try to come up with a reason that can't be shot down so easily!
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]Here is some additional information to take under consideration ML in your research, which is well stated:[/SIZE][/FONT]
1)"[SIZE=3]higher prevalence of infection in uncircumcised men than in circumcised men (19.6% vs. 5.5%)" p.9-11. Additionally realize the crux was to push for Gardasil and to limit the HPV cases & STD'S in the US. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Cited CDC in conjunction with Dept of Health & Human Services. I found most interesting the rates cited out of the US. You can post against the procedure; however, fairly the sources that are pro & their rationale should be included as well. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]As I stated multiple times; informed, parental consent without a bias. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Much like informing women regarding the BCP--every implementation has failure and risks.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]2) Additionally I found According to the BMC Infectious Dieseases (2006):[/SIZE]
“Male circumcision, which is routinely practiced in the Middle East, northern and western Africa, and western Asia, was associated with lower rates of certain STIs, HIV and cervical cancer (a proxy for HPV), but not with infections transmitted by non-sexual routes. In general, more male circumcision was strongly associated with lower cervical cancer rates and fewer HIV cases, independent of religion. Furthermore, male circumcision was independently associated with HIV among countries with primarily heterosexual HIV transmission, and not among countries with primarily homosexual or injection drug use HIV transmission. These findings all suggest that male circumcision is a true protective factor that reduces the sexual transmission of HIV and possibly HPV, independent of Muslim and Christian religions.”
3)Additional info from another source:
[FONT=arial, helvetica]"Background It is uncertain whether male circumcision reduces the risks of penile human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in the man and of cervical cancer in his female partner. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica]Methods We pooled data on 1913 couples enrolled in one of seven case–control studies of cervical carcinoma in situ and cervical cancer in five countries. Circumcision status was self-reported, and the accuracy of the data was confirmed by physical examination at three study sites. The presence or absence of penile HPV DNA was assessed by a polymerase-chain-reaction assay in 1520 men and yielded a valid result in the case of 1139 men (74.9 percent).
Results Penile HPV was detected in 166 of the 847 uncircumcised men (19.6 percent) and in 16 of the 292 circumcised men (5.5 percent). After adjustment for age at first intercourse, lifetime number of sexual partners, and other potential confounders, circumcised men were less likely than uncircumcised men to have HPV infection (odds ratio, 0.37; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.16 to 0.85). Monogamous women whose male partners had six or more sexual partners and were circumcised had a lower risk of cervical cancer than women whose partners were uncircumcised (adjusted odds ratio, 0.42; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.79). Results were similar in the subgroup of men in whom circumcision was confirmed by medical examination.
Conclusions Male circumcision is associated with a reduced risk of penile HPV infection and, in the case of men with a history of multiple sexual partners, a reduced risk of cervical cancer in their current female partners. "
Cited NEJM
[/FONT]
Sera, that is the kind of evidence that I'd like to see people from both sides showing. Thank you for providing sourced information for the community.
#1) As stated, cutting off a foot is an excellent way of preventing athlete's foot... does this make it an effective way of dealing with the problem? Also.. think about how many more stds could be avoided if even more of the penis was cut off!!! Better yet, lets castrate all men... that way they can't sexually contract an std or infect others!
- Null point.
#2) Check this scenario: there is a home for people who have lost their feet... this clinic uses a certain type of dish-soap that is really rare... compared to the general population, the clinic boasts incredibly low infection rates for athlete's foot... does that mean that the dish-soap is effective at preventing the condition? Of course not... and you'd accuse anyone who told you it did of having "unpure" intentions... either pulling your leg, or trying to sell you the soap.
- Null Point.
#3) Studies can be done a lot of ways to give false conclusions. Again, the study only considered a small number of variables... at first glance, the quoted study stinks to me already... why you ask, several reasons:
- Study is not balanced... 847 uncut, 292 cut...
- Study does not mention availability nor use of condoms in the regions
- Study does not include BG information on the regions being studied - who are the couples... how were they chosen...
[QUOTE]After adjustment for age at first intercourse, lifetime number of sexual partners, and other potential confounders[/QUOTE]
- After some magic math that is not explained, they come up with some odds... if you are going to give a number, you should give the formula for how it was attained so people can verify it... simply stating a number doesn't mean much... and anyone who has taken a post-secondary level stats class knows how easily numbers can be spun...
- Also... the study, at least the excerpt, does not provide details on who the researchers were... if for example the research was done or funded by a muslim or jewish group... then bias may be another issue... (it stinks of bias to me, but that's just a gut feel from the data you provided...)
- You could argue that this study means that its worth studying properly... but as it stands, to call this study anything remotely close to conclusive would be lying.
Brandye:
[QUOTE]Post reasonable and supportable views and we can agree or disagree.[/QUOTE]That is what I try to do.
[QUOTE] I am here objecting to the two threads that are filled with nonsense and posted by a group (perhaps of one with different names)[/quote]I am a different person from ML and all the others, if that is what you mean. [quote]with a clear agenda.[/quote] I have a clear agenda (Is there something wrong with having a clear agenda?): protecting babies (of all sexes) from unnecessary genital reduction surgery. That and the reasons for it are clearly set out at The Intactivism Pages.
It seems incredible to me that Your Resource for Sex Tips and Dating Advice, SexInfo101.com should not consider the removal of a sensitive part of the male sexual anatomy to be a an issue worthy of serious and ongoing debate. I somewhat naively imagined that such a board would have a built in bias against it. (In a parallel world, one can imagine it had never been invented. Anyone proposing it on a board like this would be shouted down with horror.)
[quote]The clarity of their anti- agenda is made by the sites and boards where they use exactly the same limited studies, exactly the same words and their attributing their tactics to other known entities at this Board.[/QUOTE]It's not quite clear to me what wrongdoing is being alleged here. Normally, to use the same arguments in different forums is called "consistency" and it's a good thing.
[quote]I just hope this is not so soon that Hugh and friends return and continue their irrational rants.[/quote]Please point out the irrationality of anything I post. Since we are talking about rationality, that should be easy.
[QUOTE]Their primary argument was based upon Australia banning automatic circumcision of newborns. That was a political decision recognizing the feelings of the aboriginal population of Australia.[/QUOTE]I have never before heard the Aboriginal people mentioned in this connection (Some Aboriginal tribes circumcise, some used to subincise [and that is horriific, quite comparable to anything they do to girls], but I don't know if they still do.) It was not political at all. It is banned in some public hospitals (as it has been in New Zealand since the 1970s) and the Children's Commissioner for Tasmania wants it banned outright. But our primary argument is based on human rights and nobody needs medical qualifications to discuss those.
[QUOTE]To read the some of the posts, it sounds like circumcision is disappearing throughout the world. In actual fact, there are more infants circumcised today than in any previous years.[/quote]If that is true, it is because of growing birth rates, not increasing circumcision rates. The circumcision rate is falling in the US, Australia and Canada, and it is now so low in the rest of the English speaking world that any increases are just random background noise, not real trends. It is at residual levels in Europe, Scandinavia, Central and South America and much of Asia. People in the US are unaware just how out on a limb that country now is.
[QUOTE]There are more mature men seeking circumcision, for a variety of reasons, than ever.[/QUOTE]If they are fully informed, that is their absolute right (just as there are more mature men seeking to have their tongues slit). One reason there are more in some parts of the world is simply that more are being left uncircumcised, and they now have that option, which an earlier generation had taken away from them.
[QUOTE]The blatant falsehoods and specious research cited on the threads from Hugh7[/QUOTE]That is a serious accusation that was never made on the threads themselves or I certainly would have answered it at the time. Please back it up now or withdraw it. What did I say that was false? What research was specious?
I repeatedly asked sera300 to explain what her accusations against me amount to, and she never did. She did some searches on my name (or what she supposes is my name) and found some things I posted elsewhere and others posted by people with the same name (including one who died in 1945!) and somehow this is some kind of case against me, but I still haven't worked out what awful thing I'm supposed to have done, and now
Sera:
[QUOTE]
Brandye
[quote]I just hope this is not so soon that Hugh and friends return and continue their irrational rants.[/quote]
Search Facebook...you will find much out about the prostitution followed by same rhetoric as the "other" posters. An attempt to support a young males "lifestyle" which is less than ethical.[/QUOTE]
she seems to be accusing me of something more. I would answer this if I could figure out what it is. She's already confused me with at least two other people, so that's probably the case here too. I don't have a Facebook account.
[QUOTE=BigKahuna;217548]#1) As stated.........(post removed)lying.[/QUOTE]
This is exactly why I said what I did, sera is not advocating either side, just presenting facts and all you do is stubbornly, blindly, defend your points, without actually reading what people say. Someone responds, and you automatically say "CIRCUMSISON IS BARBARISM! STOP CUTTING!" regardless of what the poster said. It is like debating with a brick wall.
[QUOTE]all you do is stubbornly, blindly, defend your points, without actually reading what people say[/QUOTE]
- Sera posted 3 points worth considering... I countered each of three points... stubbornly, maybe... blindly... definitely not. :P
... continued.
Sera
[QUOTE]2) Additionally I found According to the BMC Infectious Dieseases (2006):
“Male circumcision, which is routinely practiced in the Middle East, northern and western Africa, and western Asia, was associated with lower rates of certain STIs, HIV and cervical cancer (a proxy for HPV), but not with infections transmitted by non-sexual routes. In general, more male circumcision was strongly associated with lower cervical cancer rates and fewer HIV cases, independent of religion. Furthermore, male circumcision was independently associated with HIV among countries with primarily heterosexual HIV transmission, [COLOR="DarkRed">and not among countries with primarily homosexual or injection drug use HIV transmission [such as the US. My emphasis -Hugh7][/COLOR] These findings all suggest that male circumcision is a true protective factor that reduces the sexual transmission of HIV and possibly HPV, independent of Muslim and Christian religions.”[/QUOTE]
Without numbers and sources, this is meaningless. HOW MUCH is the reduction, and FROM WHAT, TO WHAT? Circumcision may reduce some rare diseases by some small amount, but that doesn't justify doing it to every baby on the off-chance that he or his partner will be one of the few who are protected.
[QUOTE]3)Additional info from another source:
"Background It is uncertain whether male circumcision reduces the risks of penile human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in the man and of cervical cancer in his female partner.
Methods We pooled data on 1913 couples enrolled in one of seven case–control studies of cervical carcinoma in situ and cervical cancer in five countries. Circumcision status was self-reported, and the accuracy of the data was confirmed by physical examination at three study sites. The presence or absence of penile HPV DNA was assessed by a polymerase-chain-reaction assay in 1520 men and yielded a valid result in the case of 1139 men (74.9 percent).
Results Penile HPV was detected in 166 of the 847 uncircumcised men (19.6 percent) and in 16 of the 292 circumcised men (5.5 percent). After adjustment for age at first intercourse, lifetime number of sexual partners, and other potential confounders, circumcised men were less likely than uncircumcised men to have HPV infection (odds ratio, 0.37; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.16 to 0.85). Monogamous women whose male partners had six or more sexual partners and were circumcised had a lower risk of cervical cancer than women whose partners were uncircumcised (adjusted odds ratio, 0.42; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.79). Results were similar in the subgroup of men in whom circumcision was confirmed by medical examination.
Conclusions Male circumcision is associated with a reduced risk of penile HPV infection and, in the case of men with a history of multiple sexual partners, a reduced risk of cervical cancer in their current female partners. "
Cited NEJM[/QUOTE]
This is the Castellsagué et al. meta-analysis of seven studies in five countries which I pull apart in detail here. Basically, they pooled the data from the different countries, none of which achieved significance separately, and because almost all men are circumcised in the Philippines and hardly any in the other countries, and HPV is rarer in the Philippines, lo and behold, a correlation appeared. When you tease out the difference between the expected and the actual number of cases, their whole case rests on
* 1 circumcised man in Brazil who didn't have HPV
* 1 circumcised man in Colombia who didn't have HPV
* 3 circumcised men in Spain who didn't have HPV
* nobody in Thailand, and
* 1 intact man in the Philippines who did have HPV.
- a total of SIX men.
[QUOTE]1)"higher prevalence of infection in uncircumcised men than in circumcised men (19.6% vs. 5.5%)" p.9-11. ...
Cited CDC in conjunction with Dept of Health & Human Services.[/QUOTE]That is not a citation. A citation is something that I (or anyone) can use to find their way back to the source so that they can analyse it for themselves. What kind of "infection" are they talking about, over what period of time? Humans get all kinds of "infections" all the time, and most of them clear up by themselves. What are those percentages? How big is the sample? One pro-circumcision fanatic says "Recurrent UTIs occur in 19% of uncircumcised boys, but in none of the circumcised.” (Morris, B, Why Circumcision is a biomedical imperative for the 21st Century, BioEssays 29:11, 1151 - that's a citation.) but it turns out he's referring to FIVE boys out of 26 (and it's really out of about 34,500 - see the details here.) Is that 19.6% like Morris's 19%? Who knows?
[QUOTE]Why circumcise a woman? What is the benefit?[/quote]Since you ask, Stallings et al. seemed to find less HIV in women who had been "circumcised", but I'd be the first to agree that that's no reason to go cutting all babies.
[quote]Being "cut" is not mandatory.[/QUOTE]When a baby is held down and cut, his choice is taken away. That is where human rights come in. This is not like vaccination (which takes nothing away), not like "other decisions parents must make" not like the umbilical cord (which will fall off by itself, has no nerves, and has finished serving its function.)
[quote]the garbage I have removed is frankly gross.[/quote] We never hear this kind of thing outside circumcising cultures. Clearly a culture of circumcision creates a culture of ignorance about the intact anatomy. [quote]Same with elderly women who wreak of urine.[/quote]Yet we never think of cutting baby girls.
[QUOTE]Ever see the pain a teen or older man has? That is traumatic! If I were a man, I doubt I would do it as an adult. I would hate my parents for not doing it at 2 days old.[/QUOTE]But only if it had to be done later. That occurs in less than 1% of cases lifelong in non-circumcising cultures. (The lifetime risk of being circumcised in Finland is one in 8,333.)
[QUOTE]We have to follow parental informed consent.
[/QUOTE](sera's emphasis). Doctors and nurses may conscientiously object to procedures. Nurses of St Vincents, Santa Fe, won the right to conscientiously object to take part in infant circumcision.
[QUOTE]It's a blast when the spouse has some fun on the side, lies, and then you are sick and loose a child.
TOO bad his penis did not fall off! And there was a time these people were ethical.
[/QUOTE]Sera seems to be writing from personal experience here. If so, I'm sorry to hear it.
A single vivid instance is a poor basis for a policy. Vast numbers of men are faithful. Vast numbers of women stay healthy. As I've repeatedly emphasised in my "irrational rants", you need to know the Number Needed to Treat (and the Number Needed to Harm) According to the American Cancer Society, one woman in 117 gets cervical cancer. If (as someone claimed with no citation) circumcision reduces the risk of cervical cancer by 20%, that's 585 babies circumcised to prevent one case, decades later. The cost and time of all those circumcisions would be better spent preventing more cases of cervical cancer more directly.
Hardngood:
[QUOTE]I can only add, that I was "cut" at two days old and it took me a year before I could walk again!![/QUOTE]You could walk at two days? Wow!
Clevername
[QUOTE]If your cut, you are, if you're not then you are not.[/QUOTE]No, if you are cut it is because someone decided to cut you. Those decisions are still being made today, about other babies. That is what the debate is about. If sera's name is a reference to "che sera sera" I have to disagree: what will be depends to a large extent on what we decide will be.
[quote]they are having surgery beneficial to their health.[/quote]The benefits are trivial or bogus, and the surgery may well be harmful to their health.
[quote]Maybe even gives the girl more stimulation during sex?[/quote]Or maybe less. It's a moving part, after all, not unlike a built-in French tickler.
[QUOTE]Brandye isnt bashing anti circ groups...she is bashing the ones who are like the peta demonstrators who dump paint on fur clothing.[/QUOTE]The most direct action any Intactivist has ever taken is, someone stole a Circumstraint(TM) from a hospital.
Any parent who does not question surgery & procedures on a child, allows them to be random needs their brains examined. I am an uncircumcised man. As a Urologist, there are reasons in the US, non-religious, and I did search facebook since I have followed this thread and the others. All appear to have the same philosophy, Hugh7, changed his profile many times. Now also stating he is a MIT Professor & a spinner of numbers & statistics. What a coincidence.
[QUOTE=rdan05;217579]Any parent who does not question surgery & procedures on a child, allows them to be random needs their brains examined. I am an uncircumcised man. As a Urologist, there are reasons in the US, non-religious,[/quote]Reasons (for cutting part of the genitals off healthy babies) that don't apply in other countries? How's that? What reasons?
[quote]and I did search facebook since I have followed this thread and the others. All appear to have the same philosophy, Hugh7, changed his profile many times. Now also stating he is a MIT Professor & a spinner of numbers & statistics. What a coincidence.[/QUOTE]WHAAA? Look, if you're going to make accusations like that, please provide references and links (or at least quotes) so that I can find out what the heck you're talking about. "MIT Professor"??? ("Anthropologist"???) This is crazy stuff. I still don't have a Facebook account (I even tried to log into Facebook and clicked that I'd lost my password, just to make sure, and they replied automatically that they'd never heard of me - just as I thought.) And "a spinner of numbers & statistics"? I think what I do is take the spin out, bring the statistics back to reality.
If others have the same philosophy as me, and may even be quoting me without attribution, there's a good reason for that. It's because I try very hard to use reason and logic, and to write simply and clearly.
If people would answer what I say, instead of attacking me personally, we might exchange some useful information here.
[quote=BigKahuna;217548]#1) As stated, cutting off a foot is an excellent way of preventing athlete's foot... does this make it an effective way of dealing with the problem? Also.. think about how many more stds could be avoided if even more of the penis was cut off!!! Better yet, lets castrate all men... that way they can't sexually contract an std or infect others!
- Null point.[/quote]
In a circumcision, you do not cut off the penis, just the foreskin. So comparing it to cutting off someones foot would be inaccurate. You can still use your penis when its circumsized, but you can not use your foot if its cut off.
It would be more like cutting off the calice on the bottom of the foot, as if you were trying to make it healthier. (not saying that works, lol. Just giving an example)
[QUOTE=andremara;217533]Bad debate style shouldn't bar anyone regardless of their stance. I should hope we don't live in a dictatorship. Full disclosure: I advocate against cutting any body parts from unconsenting minors. As a cut male, I have studied this topic with the goal of informing the public through writing and speaking about the harms I believe it has caused me. I am in process on a book about this, and believe with a little accurate education, people can understand more clearly the range of issues relevant here: physical, ethical, legal, psychological and societal. It has far-reaching impacts that, while understood by a broad and diverse base, have not been clearly discussed. It is my belief that the two primary obstacles we have are some lingering sexual unease in public discourse and an intractable medical profession whose bias has effectively blunted their capacity for cogent thought on the matter; only secondarily is the issue of money obtained through cutting in that profession pertinent to their reasons for desiring status quo. Financial incentive, however may be driving the larger pushes on the part of the immense corporations whose pro-cutting stance benefits their bottom line, as infant foreskins are extremely valuable for generating new skin as well as other grown biologics.
Overall I suggest we elevate the debate, and that both sides do their reading. For me, it has been about 15 years, and I find I am still learning, primarily through symposia materials, doctors, psychologists, and not through mass media.
Sometimes the truth is not a clean geometry, lying equidistant between two points. Sometimes truth lies clearly outside such equations.
Andre Maranhao
Aston, PA
June 2008[/QUOTE]
I do give you credit for drawing upon personal experience, this is essential to discuss the topic--you are stating your opinion through personal stance.
Medically, not much is made financially for circumcision's since one must round regardless. Additionally I agree there are two sides to each issue and when presented well; individuals can do what is in the best interest of the "owner". I am a Urologist, non-cut, Jewish upbringing, parents made a choice against their religious beliefs. Given my age, now it is a mute point for myself. I was fortunate to have rudimentary issues with disease personally yet in this day and age, I can see why one would wish to have such done; disease is an epidemic, proportionally.
Those who compare amputations of a foot for prevention of Athlete's feet are drawing a very strange analogy. There is no comparison.
Wish you well with your writings and lectures. I would have interest in your personal experiences and attend such lectures. What the public misses is for every medication, vaccination, procedure, surgery, "life experiences", there is always a negative and positive outcome. The degree can not be guaranteed--such as fill an individual with Septra DS for a UTI, there can be negative results and deaths secondary to allergy's. Give women a hormonal birth control, and there are risks associated such as death.
[QUOTE=Hugh7;217581]Reasons (for cutting part of the genitals off healthy babies) that don't apply in other countries? How's that? What reasons?
WHAAA? Look, if you're going to make accusations like that, please provide references and links (or at least quotes) so that I can find out what the heck you're talking about. "MIT Professor"??? ("Anthropologist"???) This is crazy stuff. I still don't have a Facebook account (I even tried to log into Facebook and clicked that I'd lost my password, just to make sure, and they replied automatically that they'd never heard of me - just as I thought.) And "a spinner of numbers & statistics"? I think what I do is take the spin out, bring the statistics back to reality.
If others have the same philosophy as me, and may even be quoting me without attribution, there's a good reason for that. It's because I try very hard to use reason and logic, and to write simply and clearly.
If people would answer what I say, instead of attacking me personally, we might exchange some useful information here.[/QUOTE]
Hugh Young is well known on Facebook the profile now changed to MIT Professor. The previous Hugh Young, cited in your original link to "information" spoke the same as the link to publishing. Was very easy to trace to Face book since the same words you originally used were also stated there. Perhaps you lost your password, my secretary & Administrative Assistant found it in a few minutes. Since the profile does not exist, as originally stated, might be difficult to post any link since it was changed. There were two H.Y.'s with the same verbiage. The Anthropologist is really a former zoo keeper who speaks your exact words. That is odd. No personal attack just fact finding. Why do you take such a defensive approach to research? This is just sound and rational since the poster on Face book has the same exact terms as yourself, it's logical. Create a profile and take a look, even a secretary could create anything he wished. He printed the documents for me to review.
The US has regulations and ethical boards, what is done elsewhere is barbaric based on the geography.
Any individual can create a cause applying numerical spinning. Also know as "Spin Doctors", for clarification not to be confused with a MD's, most associated with Politicians and Attorneys.
Nothing "personal" here, mere observations.
[QUOTE=Hugh7;217581]Reasons (for cutting part of the genitals off healthy babies) that don't apply in other countries? How's that? What reasons?
WHAAA? Look, if you're going to make accusations like that, please provide references and links (or at least quotes) so that I can find out what the heck you're talking about. "MIT Professor"??? ("Anthropologist"???) This is crazy stuff. I still don't have a Facebook account (I even tried to log into Facebook and clicked that I'd lost my password, just to make sure, and they replied automatically that they'd never heard of me - just as I thought.) And "a spinner of numbers & statistics"? I think what I do is take the spin out, bring the statistics back to reality.
If others have the same philosophy as me, and may even be quoting me without attribution, there's a good reason for that. It's because I try very hard to use reason and logic, and to write simply and clearly.
If people would answer what I say, instead of attacking me personally, we might exchange some useful information here.[/QUOTE]
I assume you have a complex. That is very clear.
Pages