[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Thanks Ducy for putting this up. I had more points to make but I did not want to stay involved in the other threads. So here is my position on the matter. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]United Nations Human Rights Declaration, Article 3 “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” part of the right of security of person is that you are safe from anyone invading or altering your body with out your consent. This is one of the main premises that were used to declare Female Genital Mutilation as a human rights violation (I am not saying that infant male circumcision is not equivalent to Female Genital Mutilation). Because an infant can not give consent, a circumcision at that age is altering his body with out his consent. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]At this point the question of the greater good comes up. If routinely circumcising infants reduces the rates of certain STD/STI then it is ok? So the question comes down to, do the ends justify the means? There are both good and bad studies on this matter. Most of the bad ones inflate the rates one way or the other. There is evidence to the fact that there are lower rates of STD/STI in circumcised men. The studies that clam drastic decreases, like 50%, are flawed. The samples are either very small and are not representative of the population, or the sample is not from the population (Like studies talking about African countries). The better studies suggest around a 10-15% decreases in certain STD/STI in circumcised men. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]There is no easy quick fix to the problem of STD/STI and it is most certainly Routine Circumcision is not the solution. If you want to reduce the rates of HPV, HIV and other STD you need to start with education. None of this would matter if people would use condoms. Instead of perching abstinence in schools, embrace the sexual nature of people. Teach teens to practice safe sex and make condoms free and easily accessible. That is what would really help prevent STD/STI. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]If you want to get your self circumcised for any reason, by all means do so. I have no problem with circumcision and even think it my have some benefits. However, it is not the right of anyone to alter your body without your consent. I am only against performing medical procedures that are not immediately medically necessary on people that are unable to give consent. The ends do not justify the means. [/SIZE][/FONT]

I do appericiate what your doing here, but isn't this abit done to dust and a waste of a new thread? If this was translated onto one of the other threads on circumsition you could carry on that way? This is just a sugestion though don't slaughter me if you dont think I'm making sense or just trying to tell you what to do..

[QUOTE=Ducy;217561]You may certainly post sources (credible sources such as a national health board, but please no sources from some person who sits in their basement blogging his own opinions and claiming them to be fact)[/QUOTE]
National Health Boards can be mistaken or biased (after all, they disagree with each other), and when they entirely comprise men who've had part of their penises cut off, on the subject of circumcision that's almost guaranteed. To a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, and to a panel of surgeons, every problem needs an operation.

Circumcision is not just a health issue. People who say "it's a decision for parents" have already granted that it's a human rights issue (otherwise doctors and hospitals would be justified in going ahead and circumcising every baby without asking, as they used to do). They just haven't got their heads around who the human is whose rights are most intimately involved, or the fact that circumcision, like tattooing, is a permanent, irrevocable modification of a person's most intimate part. Is it any wonder that a growing number of men are resentful that it was done to them and are trying to undo it?

Some person who sits in a basement may know what they are talking about and be worth listening to. Their opinion may be well-researched. They might be convincing.

(Actually, I'd say that starting the discussion at "circumcision" is the wrong place. First you need a discussion of the intact penis and how it works. After all, would you start a discussion of "[any other body part]" with "Should we cut off [that body part]?" But you started this thread and you can start it where you like.)

I agree with Hugh. We should start this discussion about how and why the intact penis is supposed to be.

Ducy, if you are ready to sign your kids up to circumcision based on your impression of: "meh, it worked for me so I think my kids'll like it too", then I don't think you have reviewed all the facts for yourself. For one thing, you've never had an intact penis so you have nothing to compare to.

Recent studies show that sexual stimulation may be drastically reduced. This is because the most sensitive part of the male sexual organ is contained in the foreskin just under the "front" of the glans, and not the glans itself, which was previously given this designation incorrectly. When the foreskin is removed the glans becomes hardened and desensitized. This has then been found to reduce the sexual pleasure for the female as well because in order to achieve climax, the male has to thrust harder and faster, resulting in soreness and irritation. In recent studies females unanimously reported that the uncircumcised male was a far better sexual partner because he did not have to thrust as rough. The majority of the women reported being unsatisfied and sore after sex with a "cut" male.

Translation: The foreskin has a very important sexual role for both partners.

mod: Please delete this post. It was accidentally posted twice.

[quote]If you want to get your self circumcised for any reason, by all means do so. I have no problem with circumcision and even think it my have some benefits. However, it is not the right of anyone to alter your body without your consent. I am only against performing medical procedures that are not immediately medically necessary on people that are unable to give consent. The ends do not justify the means.[/quote]
I was circumcised, and as such will not have to undergo surgery for it as an adult. Having the operation performed at a time I cannot remember effectively rendered it painless. What, then, is the problem?

[QUOTE=Browser;217650]I was circumcised, and as such will not have to undergo surgery for it as an adult. Having the operation performed at a time I cannot remember effectively rendered it painless. What, then, is the problem?[/QUOTE]

Why would you have to undergo it as an adult. Why would you have to undergo it at all?

Yes, you are correct. This baby is effectively in no pain as well.

[QUOTE=Wahoowa;217682]um... citation?

[COLOR="DarkRed">
O'Hara, K., and O'Hara, J. "The Effect of Male Circumcision on the Sexual Enjoyment of the Female Partner." BJU International 83 suppl. 1 (1999): 79-84.

Quote from article discussing the citation provided above:

"In a more recent survey, women with longer dual experience preferred anatomically complete men overwhelmingly to circumcised men [31]. Without the foreskin to provide a movable sleeve of skin, intercourse with a circumcised penis resulted in decreased vaginal secretions, more vaginal discomfort, harder and deeper thrusting of the partner, less chance of having an orgasm, less frequent orgasms, less frequent multiple orgasms, and shorter duration of coitus."[/COLOR]

and since my best sexual partner was circumcised, i find this consensus to be very improbable. for any study in absolutely any area of research to be unanimous it would have to be a pretty small group and thus, not worth much.

[COLOR="DarkRed">Sorry, I used poor language. Of course rarely anything is truly unanimous. See the citation above for the rest of your concerns.[/COLOR]

i have a hard time believing one could get 10 women who've had both circumcised and uncircumcised partners to agree unanimously that one was better than the other---that is unless they were brought together for a point to be proven and not through random selection.

oh, and this also assumes that no woman enjoys having rough sex, another assumption that's been made in an effort to promote your cause.

and if the reason the circumcised male has to thrust harder because of being desensitized, were the women asked if their uncircumcised male was wearing a condom? does that not also desensitize the penis, thus making him thrust harder?

a word of advice, don't base your arguments on absolutes. it makes you sound a lot less credible.[/QUOTE]

Again, see the paper I cited for the specifics regarding your objections.

[QUOTE=CleverName;217699]We are not talking about a stranger, we are talking about parents who love their child and want the best for him/her. There is a HUGE difference. This analogy is irrelevant.

I do undertand what you are saying and see your points, but I feel it is the parents choice. They will do what they feel is best for their child.[/QUOTE]It didn't have to be a stranger. If his parents had had him (an adult) strapped down and circumcised a month ago, it would have violated his human rights just as much as if it had been a stranger - even if they were doing it because they loved him and wanted the best for him. In the vast majority of cases there would have been nothing wrong with his foreskin then or now (unlike the cyst), so it is just as much a human rights violation then as now.

(And it doesn't change anything if he is now glad to have been circumcised: just because he now feels he wouldn't have liked the flavour of the candy, doesn't mean the candy wasn't stolen from him.)

[quote]The best anyone can do is educate the parents on BOTH the good and the bad points of circumcision.[/quote]Before we do that, we need to educate them about the foreskin, what it does, how it works - that it's not just a flap of skin, for starters. In most of the world, everybody knows that, of course.

[QUOTE=Browser;217650]What, then, is the problem?[/QUOTE]The problem is that yours is not the only outcome. There are four:

1. Intact and happy 2. Cut and happy
3. Intact and unhappy 4. Cut and unhappy

1. and 2. are happy, we don't have to worry about them.
3. have an obvious solution to their distress. (And outside circumcising cultures, they are very, very rare.)
It's 4. that have the real problem. Somebody strapped them down and cut off the most sensitive part of their penis without their consent. Their unhappiness has every basis in reality.

"But they were babies, and it was their parents' decision" you say? Put it this way: If someone grabbed a man in the street last month, strapped him down and circumcised him, the violation of his rights would be obvious. But does doing it within a few hours of birth make any difference to the outcome today from doing it last month? He doesn't have it now.

[QUOTE=pozzolane;217640]When the foreskin is removed the glans becomes hardened and desensitized. This has then been found to reduce the sexual pleasure for the female as well because in order to achieve climax, the male has to thrust harder and faster, resulting in soreness and irritation. In recent studies females unanimously reported that the uncircumcised male was a far better sexual partner because he did not have to thrust as rough. The majority of the women reported being unsatisfied and sore after sex with a "cut" male.

Translation: The foreskin has a very important sexual role for both partners.[/QUOTE]

um... citation? and since my best sexual partner was circumcised, i find this consensus to be very improbable. for any study in absolutely any area of research to be unanimous it would have to be a pretty small group and thus, not worth much. i have a hard time believing one could get 10 women who've had both circumcised and uncircumcised partners to agree unanimously that one was better than the other---that is unless they were brought together for a point to be proven and not through random selection.

oh, and this also assumes that no woman enjoys having rough sex, another assumption that's been made in an effort to promote your cause.

and if the reason the circumcised male has to thrust harder because of being desensitized, were the women asked if their uncircumcised male was wearing a condom? does that not also desensitize the penis, thus making him thrust harder?

a word of advice, don't base your arguments on absolutes. it makes you sound a lot less credible.

[quote=Hugh7;217680]
"But they were babies, and it was their parents' decision" you say? Put it this way: If someone grabbed a man in the street last month, strapped him down and circumcised him, the violation of his rights would be obvious. But does doing it within a few hours of birth make any difference to the outcome today from doing it last month? He doesn't have it now.[/quote]

So what if the baby has a syst on his forehead? Should they wait until the baby can talk to cut it off? Or do they not have the right to make that decision?

We are not talking about a stranger, we are talking about parents who love their child and want the best for him/her. There is a HUGE difference. This analogy is irrelevant.

I do undertand what you are saying and see your points, but I feel it is the parents choice. They will do what they feel is best for their child. The best anyone can do is educate the parents on BOTH the good and the bad points of circumcision.

[QUOTE=CleverName;217699]So what if the baby has a syst on his forehead? Should they wait until the baby can talk to cut it off? Or do they not have the right to make that decision?
[/QUOTE]A cyst is a medical condition. Removing a male's foreskin is not, unless there is also a medical complication involved. Tonsils are usually not removed anymore unless there is a medical indication to do so. Neither is any other body part that I can think of (maybe somebody else can).
Someone could make the (very weak) argument it's "preventative surgery" for future complications, but considering the percentage of men who never have problems I don't think it's a very good or logical point of view.

But as to your point about whether parents have the right . . . they most certainly have the legal right as the law now states in the U.S., and I agree they need to be given objective education before making the decision one way or the other.

[QUOTE=DVDBear;217700] Neither is any other body part that I can think of (maybe somebody else can).[/QUOTE]

Appendix. ;)

Thats what I meant DVD, its like your tonsils, it stays in unless theres a problem. :p

Oops, CW . . . missed the intent there. :o

[QUOTE=curious_woman;217708]Appendix. ;)[/QUOTE]I've still got mine, so does my partner. They're not taken out routinely to my knowledge. There has to be some indication of problems.

[QUOTE=DVDBear;217710]I've still got mine, so does my partner. They're not taken out routinely to my knowledge. There has to be some indication of problems.[/QUOTE]

yes you're correct your appendix is not removed unless there is evidance to suggest of an appendasitus. not the nicest things to deal with, belive me having experienced the pain before hand. Your Gallbladder is another i beieve, and in some cases of bad dietbetis you're pancrious can be removed.

[QUOTE=Wahoowa;217987]wisdom teeth. taken out so the mouth can be cleaned easier.[/QUOTE]
I've never heard that, although it might be a reason. However, I've still got mine at 53, they've never given me any problems and no dentist has suggested removing them. I've had other teeth pulled (wish I had them back!) for uncorrectable issues.

From WebMD -

[COLOR="RoyalBlue">Why It Is Done

A wisdom tooth is extracted to correct an actual problem or to prevent problems that may come up in the future. When wisdom teeth come in, a number of problems can occur:

* Your jaw may not be large enough for them, and they may become impacted and unable to break through your gums.
* Your wisdom teeth may break partway through your gums, causing a flap of gum tissue to grow over them. Food and germs can get trapped under the flap and cause your gums to become red, swollen, and painful. These are signs of infection.
* More serious problems can develop from impacted teeth, such as infection, damage to other teeth and bone, or a cyst.
* One or more of your wisdom teeth may come in at an awkward angle, with the top of the tooth facing forward, backward, or to either side.

[/COLOR]Again, I don't think it's done routinely, usually not recommended unless there are indications of complications like above.

[QUOTE=curious_woman;217708]Appendix. ;)[/QUOTE]
I'm 52 and I still have my appendix (but not my foreskin :mad:).

[QUOTE=DVDBear;217710]I've still got mine [appendix], so does my partner. They're not taken out routinely to my knowledge. There has to be some indication of problems.[/QUOTE]A good few years ago, I remember someone was going to spend several months alone in Antarctica, and it was decided they (almost certainly he, back then) should have their appendix out before they left, just on the off chance that they developed appendicitis when they were so far from anywhere. I remember there was some serious debate about the ethics of whether an operation should be performed to remove healthy tissue from a person. How very different from the discussion about the foreskin!

[QUOTE=DVDBear;217700]A cyst is a medical condition. Removing a male's foreskin is not, unless there is also a medical complication involved. Tonsils are usually not removed anymore unless there is a medical indication to do so. Neither is any other body part that I can think of (maybe somebody else can).
[/QUOTE]

wisdom teeth. taken out so the mouth can be cleaned easier.

Wisdom teeth stay in unless they have to come up due to impaction/the things DVD mentioned. They also are not pulled until they are "ready". I only have 2 for some reason, I wasn't born (?) with ones on top, but my dentist said they are not to be pulled until I am 24-25. I have known friends who had them out as young as 14 though, and as old as 40. They aren't routine, they come out when/if they will cause an issue.

[QUOTE=Wahoowa;217987]wisdom teeth. taken out so the mouth can be cleaned easier.[/QUOTE]

Nice try, but epic fail!!

Wisdom teeth are not removed for easier cleaning. They are removed as a orthodontic treatment for an "impacted" back molar/s. It's when the teeth are too large for the jaw and grow into the jawbone causing pain and other problems. Lots of people do not get their wisdom teeth pulled because they will never have a problem. However, it may only be your bottom wisdom teeth that are impacted (or the top). In this case they all still need to be removed because if a bottom tooth is pulled without pulling the top (or visa versa) the remaining tooth keeps growing out of the gums.

This is completely different from routine neonatal circumcision. Not even close. For one thing, it leaves no after effects on your sex life, or psychological issues (which may be rare but not uncommon). Nor is the surgery as risky. Worst case scenario is they hit a nerve and you have loss of sensation in your tongue/mouth. Worst case for circumcision is complete devastation of the genitals and or death.

[QUOTE=pozzolane;218002]Nice try, but epic fail!!
Nor is the surgery as risky. Worst case scenario is they hit a nerve and you have loss of sensation in your tongue/mouth. [/QUOTE]

Anesthesia can cause death as can Osteo. or Bacterial Endo. with impaction removal. Often many require General Anesthesia leading to cases of pneumonia from vents and poor post-surgical 02 movement.

[QUOTE=rdan05;218003]Anesthesia can cause death as can Osteo. or Bacterial Endo. with impaction removal. Often many require General Anesthesia leading to cases of pneumonia from vents and poor post-surgical 02 movement.[/QUOTE]

You can't compare the risks of anesthetics used to remove wisdom teeth to the risks of circumcision. For one, it's not required for the surgery. Local anesthetics work just as well. It's only used when the patient specifically requests it if it's an option. Two, it's extremely rare that someone does not wake from a chemically induced comatose due to IV anesthetics. The risk of death due to IV anesthetics is one that can be included on practically all surgical procedures. Therefore, the risks of anesthetics is a moot point. I'm talking about long term effects directly due to the surgical procedure. How many people have you heard of dying due to getting wisdom teeth pulled? IS there a single case?

How many orthodontists have accidentally screwed up the surgery which would then require the removal of all of the patients teeth and tongue?

[QUOTE=pozzolane;218004]You can't compare the risks of anesthetics used to remove wisdom teeth to the risks of circumcision. For one, it's not required for the surgery. Local anesthetics work just as well. It's only used when the patient specifically requests it if it's an option. Two, it's extremely rare that someone does not wake from a chemically induced comatose due to IV anesthetics. The risk of death due to IV anesthetics is one that can be included on practically all surgical procedures. Therefore, the risks of anesthetics is a moot point. I'm talking about long term effects directly due to the surgical procedure. How many people have you heard of dying due to getting wisdom teeth pulled? IS there a single case?

How many orthodontists have accidentally screwed up the surgery which would then require the removal of all of the patients teeth and tongue?[/QUOTE]

Since you are the Doctor why not answer? Moot point huh? Explain how many incidents you have seen in the OR and the IV and Inhalants [Anesthesia]for such surgery both in office and in a hospital, types of suture materials, dry socket, etc. Please...You have my full attention for this invasive procedure which you deem harmless. And please explain the psychological trauma of "noise association" in adults patients secondary to anesthesia in non-psych patients.

Why do these conversations always spiral into these completely off topic sidelines? The issue isn't what's the more dangerous procedure - circumcision or wisdom teeth removal! - it's whether there is another surgery that is performed as routinely as circumcision without any indicators of potential health complications to warrant it. I think it's obvious wisdom teeth removal does not qualify on those grounds. The rest is irrelevant to this discussion.

[QUOTE=rdan05;218007]Since you are the Doctor why not answer?
[COLOR="DarkRed">
Personal attack will not be tolerated. Edit your post to something more civil or I will report it[/COLOR]

Moot point huh?

[COLOR="DarkRed">Yes, please explain why risk of anesthetic use in surgical procedure is relevant to the discussion. Since it is a risk in every surgical procedure where it is used, the only point you make is that it is a risk in most surgical procedures. It gives nothing to the discussion. [/COLOR]

Explain how many incidents you have seen in the OR and the IV and Inhalants [Anesthesia]for such surgery both in office and in a hospital, types of suture materials, dry socket, etc.

[COLOR="DarkRed">Dry socket is nothing compared to permanent nerve damage of the face and mouth, which, I've already listed as a risk of the surgery for the removal of wisdom teeth. It's also nothing compared to having to remove the child's genitalia due to a "mis-hap" during circumcision which is unrecoverable (this has happened). [/COLOR]

Please...You have my full attention for this invasive procedure which you deem harmless.

[COLOR="DarkRed">When have I deemed it harmless? I said it is not comparable to routine neonatal circumcision, because it's done strictly for medical purposes. Neonatal circumcision is not. [/COLOR]

And please explain the psychological trauma of "noise association" in adults patients secondary to anesthesia in non-psych patients.

[COLOR="DarkRed">Again, relevance? [/COLOR]

[/QUOTE]

Now I will emphasis my lack of tolerance for uncivil debate. Check yourself, and explain the relevance to this discussion or I will be reporting you.

[QUOTE=DVDBear;218011]Why do these conversations always spiral into these completely off topic sidelines? The issue isn't what's the more dangerous procedure - circumcision or wisdom teeth removal! - it's whether there is another surgery that is performed as routinely as circumcision without any indicators of potential health complications to warrant it. [COLOR="DarkRed">I think it's obvious wisdom teeth removal does not qualify on those grounds.[/COLOR] The rest is irrelevant to this discussion.[/QUOTE]

Thanks DVD.

[QUOTE=pozzolane;218012]Now I will emphasis my lack of tolerance for uncivil debate. Check yourself, and explain the relevance to this discussion or I will be reporting you.[/QUOTE]

You cannot explain it fully is the point from a medical performance or procedure just statistically. Lack of tolerance, yes, you do have that. Report away.:rolleyes:

DVD: The point was people explaining medical issues they are not aware of why they are performed, not if they are perceived as required. Any cut/intervention brings unwanted potential consequences. The reason for morbidity & mortality reports reviewed & routinely watched.

Much like an Acute AP. The removal is required. However, there are other conditions which warrant removal such as a poppy seed being caught and causing chronic, intermittent inflammation. Tonsils, scar tissue which builds up and produces an ongoing low-grade infection which requires a removal.

Unfortunately with an AP removal; the medical review boards in the US look at a surgeon by not how many acute AP's they caught. If found to be 100%; the question which is asked is; "How many did you miss since you had a 100% accuracy rate"?

Circumcision still falls back to a parents choice until US laws or parents change their minds. Going back to the multitude of similar threads; the original posters had questions & made their own choices. Any additional discussions on the Baby topic belongs on parenting sites. If a parent chose to have the procedure performed; one should be asking their parent why it was done. If the answer was; "because everyone else did", I'd have to ask if everyone else jumped off a bridge would you?" Similar arguments are used in courts when people are speeding a judge tell a person; "because everyone else was does not mean you should".

One last thought; of the new posters on this topic which have suddenly appeared; how many of them feel they are sexually dysfunctional secondary to circumcision? Or have been reported as being less physically desirable secondary to such procedure? Or report having personal early infancy trauma or decreased personal sensitivity as a result of such procedure? Less speculatory looked at from this prospective

I feel that amongst the debate over the evilness of circumcision, we have overlooked another highly evil and medically unsafe practice: Haircuts.

If God had intended for our hair to be shorter, he wouldn't have made it grow! Haircuts are medically dangerous as they can increase the risk of skin cancer and if someone's hair is cut too short the sun can get in their eyes and permanently blind them. Also, the process of cutting hair is extremely risky, involving sharp scissors and other instruments, and can lead to ears being cut off and even death. Anesthetics are rarely, if ever, used.

Babies and small children cannot consent to getting haircuts. It is extremely barbaric and unfair to give babies and small children a haircut. Often, older children who have the ability to express consent are given haircuts against their will. Also, haircuts can be psychologically damaging. People with bad haircuts often feel embarassed and are considered to be "not cool". People who don't look cool are not always socially accepted within their communities and this can have a direct negative impact on their sex lives. There are at least a million undocumented cases of people that have committed suicide because of bad haircuts.

Given the edivence hereby presented, it is a undeniable fact that haircuts are, in fact, the work of the devil and in direct violation of human rights as stated in the United States Constitution and must be outlawed at once.*

- Dr. Oedipussy**

* Source: The Oedipussy Extremely Biased Anti-Haircut Medical-Science Research Labarotory Corporation

** Dr. Oedipussy is a highly qualified Super-genuis and Fashion Expert with a Mail-Order P.h.d. in Speculative Psychology and Medicine, which cost over $900 (+ postage and handling) and required mastering an hour-long internet course taught by world-renowned surgeon Dr. Benway.

[QUOTE=rdan05;218016]
DVD: The point was people explaining medical issues they are not aware of why they are performed, not if they are perceived as required. Any cut/intervention brings unwanted potential consequences. The reason for morbidity & mortality reports reviewed & routinely watched.
[/QUOTE]Maybe its *a* point, but it wasn't *my* point. In other words I'm still asking if there is any other surgery that is routinely suggested without a medical provocation. The foreskin is part of the male anatomy that every child is born with. At least here in the U.S. it's my understanding that removing it is brought to the parent's attention as a procedural option they may decide to take, stressing that if they are going to choose to have their child circumcised it's best and less stressful if done shortly after birth, correct? Even if it's normal, healthy, no apparent medical issues it's still brought to their attention as an option (and this I'm asking . . . I don't have kids and have never talked to anyone about how the subject is brought up to parents). The fact that it's a parent's right to make that choice I'm certainly not disputing . . . as it now stands within U.S. law it is. But I'm still looking for a precedent of any other removal of part of EITHER sex's anatomy that is treated in this same routine fashion. Not so with the appendix, not so with wisdom teeth, not so with gall bladders, all of which people can live without quite easily, all of which potentially cause complications. So I'm honestly asking . . . Is there? If so, what?

^ The above is not meant as an attack on anyone's personal views, just as a spoof on some of the arguments being made.

[QUOTE=oedipussy;218021]I feel that amongst the debate over the evilness of circumcision, we have overlooked another highly evil and medically unsafe practice: Haircuts.

If God had intended for our hair to be shorter, he wouldn't have made it grow! Haircuts are medically dangerous as they can increase the risk of skin cancer and if someone's hair is cut too short the sun can get in their eyes and permanently blind them. Also, the process of cutting hair is extremely risky, involving sharp scissors and other instruments, and can lead to ears being cut off and even death. Anesthetics are rarely, if ever, used.

Babies and small children cannot consent to getting haircuts. It is extremely barbaric and unfair to give babies and small children a haircut. Often, older children who have the ability to express consent are given haircuts against their will. Also, haircuts can be psychologically damaging. People with bad haircuts often feel embarassed and are considered to be "not cool". People who don't look cool are not always socially accepted within their communities and this can have a direct negative impact on their sex lives. There are at least a million undocumented cases of people that have committed suicide because of bad haircuts.
[/QUOTE]Nice one Oedi, except my hair's grown back from a bad haircut (and I've had a few in my day) . . . . I'm still waiting for a second crack at a foreskin (and I water it and everything!)

[QUOTE=rdan05;218016]Or report having personal early infancy trauma or decreased personal sensitivity as a result of such procedure? Less speculatory looked at from this prospective[/QUOTE]Well, as I mentioned in the other thread, how can you determine whether you have decreased sensitivity when you've got nothing to compare it against? The only person who can give any kind of perspective on that would be an adult male who's had his removed and lived with it both ways. And I've heard testimony in both directions when it comes to that.

Ha! (Ugh, I hate trying to "laugh" on the internet). Do you really miss it that much?

I'm circumcised and can't say that I ever wished that I wasn't. I'm happy with the way things are (and definitely think it looks better this way).

Also, to add to the debate, I believe (not sure though) that some people are born with tails and have them removed shortly after birth. So maybe that would be another example of an unneccessary surgery?

[QUOTE=oedipussy;218028]Ha! (Ugh, I hate trying to "laugh" on the internet). Do you really miss it that much?

I'm circumcised and can't say that I ever wished that I wasn't. I'm happy with the way things are (and definitely think it looks better this way).[/QUOTE]Again, I don't know what I'm missing. That's the point. It's "original factory equipment" and I would prefer to have been left with it. I'm of the belief it serves a purpose. It's obviously been HIGHLY debatable how important that purpose is. I know a number of uncut guys who are very attached (pun intended) to their foreskin and would no more think of having it removed then they would a toe or earlobe or any other part of their body that wasn't giving them problems. Aesthetically, you have a point . . . . personally I like the look of an uncut dick, but many don't. Fine with me either way . . . in adulthood, if you decide you'd look better cut, by all means go for it. Want a P.A.? Knock yourself out. Want tats or to have your tongue split . . . hey, it's your bod and nobody's gonna say no (as long as your of legal age). But that's (partially) what this argument is about . . . . freedom to choose, not having the choice made for you.

[QUOTE=oedipussy;218028]
Also, to add to the debate, I believe (not sure though) that some people are born with tails and have them removed shortly after birth. So maybe that would be another example of an unneccessary surgery?[/QUOTE]That may be true, but that would fall under a physical abnormality. If we were all born with 'em I'd wanna keep mine! :D

[QUOTE=DVDBear;218022]Maybe its *a* point, but it wasn't *my* point. In other words I'm still asking if there is any other surgery that is routinely suggested without a medical provocation. The foreskin is part of the male anatomy that every child is born with. At least here in the U.S. it's my understanding that removing it is brought to the parent's attention as a procedural option they may decide to take, stressing that if they are going to choose to have their child circumcised it's best and less stressful if done shortly after birth, correct? Even if it's normal, healthy, no apparent medical issues it's still brought to their attention as an option (and this I'm asking . . . I don't have kids and have never talked to anyone about how the subject is brought up to parents). The fact that it's a parent's right to make that choice I'm certainly not disputing . . . as it now stands within U.S. law it is. But I'm still looking for a precedent of any other removal of part of EITHER sex's anatomy that is treated in this same routine fashion. Not so with the appendix, not so with wisdom teeth, not so with gall bladders, all of which people can live without quite easily, all of which potentially cause complications. So I'm honestly asking . . . Is there? If so, what?[/QUOTE]

I knew what you meant. I do know that the choice later in life is, well, painful for a very long period of time for men and can come with associated risks. As an adult I would not want a Doctor cutting me off as a grown man. OUCH. Unless it was medically necessary. Babies heal much faster and with much more ease secondary to the immune systems and cells which are not yet "differentiated". A baby has X number of cells which are not for any specific purpose until a certain age. They can turn into Osteoblasts, etc. to heal a body whereas an adult or smaller child does not have the same ability. Everyone was into naming body parts which is where I took the Tonsils & Appendix from. Removing the Pancreas? Not a good option.

I would think the best approach if people, men, feel strongly about the matter; sharing of such experiences (i.e. psychological trauma, etc.) formulated into a survey on this site would be more productive v. debating 'Journals' and the CDC. The men who seemed to respond as new posters have a science background and formulating an informal survey for the boards intention, where men can answer & share information, would be most productive although not true Journal info.

Dividing men into groups of two to answer cut or non followed by personal & sexual feelings would be more helpful to those who read (without a biased approach). Put differently; how do you feel about; if left intact or were you cut later? Have either groups had any issues medically? Psychologically? Etc. What do the male sexual counterparts say about the issue which are not cut? Have they had infections? Foreskin problems (such as the original posters indicated), what options worked or were attempted to prevent any such surgery as an adult?

It's a very easy matter for a researcher or engineer to formulate such feedback study; an unbiased, personal, observations, emotions, and perceptions which would be more productive to adult readers or teens on the site v. a debate. It can be viewed through neutrality.

At least you are fortunate & hair grew back as you had a shorter haircut; you did not become bald! An informal study can be composed and answered by all new & older posters as to their experiences. I wonder if this is why I am balding!

You can shed unique experiences since you have been with men who were not cut and can make personal observations based on your sexual experiences.

Oedipus--are you qualified as the doctor of love? ;)

[QUOTE=rdan05;218032]I knew what you meant. I do know that the choice later in life is, well, painful for a very long period of time for men and can come with associated risks. As an adult I would not want a Doctor cutting me off as a grown man. OUCH. Unless it was medically necessary.

I would think the best approach if people, men, feel strongly about the matter; sharing of such experiences (i.e. psychological trauma, etc.) formulated into a survey on this site would be more productive v. debating 'Journals' and the CDC. The men who seemed to respond as new posters have a science background and formulating an informal survey for the boards intention, where men can answer & share information, would be most productive although not true Journal info.

Dividing men into groups of two to answer cut or non followed by personal & sexual feelings would be more helpful to those who read (without a biased approach). Put differently; how do you feel about; if left intact or were you cut later? Have either groups had any issues medically? Psychologically? Etc. What do the male sexual counterparts say about the issue which are not cut? Have they had infections? Foreskin problems (such as the original posters indicated), what options worked or were attempted to prevent any such surgery as an adult?

It's a very easy matter for a researcher or engineer to formulate such feedback study; an unbiased, personal, observations, emotions, and perceptions which would be more productive to adult readers or teens on the site v. a debate. It can be viewed through neutrality.

At least you are fortunate & hair grew back as you had a shorter haircut; you did not become bald! An informal study can be composed and answered by all new & older posters as to their experiences. I wonder if this is why I am balding!

You can shed unique experiences since you have been with men who were not cut and can make personal observations based on your sexual experiences.
[/QUOTE]
I think there's no doubt the procedure is more involved as an adult, and unless someone was HIGHLY motivated to get it done probably would opt not to, especially if it's merely a cosmetic issue. (Although the torturous things I've seen people do to themselves for "statement" purposes blows my mind, so in that sense circumcision probably isn't that extreme!) The only thing I'd mention, and this is of course completely speculation, is a male born today would have fifteen plus years of medical advancement to his advantage if he decided to have it snipped as an adult. What, in the present, is a very uncomfortable and involved procedure may be considerably easier by then.

I think your idea is a great one, actually. People should share their personal feelings about how they feel it's changed their lives either way. If you're uncut do you feel you have an edge over someone who is? If the procedure WAS no big deal today would you opt to have it done? Why? For those of us without, what do you feel you're missing out on? Has it impacted you in a real, tangible way (or emotional, equally valid). And please, no value judgments of other people's feelings . . . if it's important to someone it's important, whether or not you can relate to those feelings. Obviously Oedi is just fine with the decision, has never given it much thought and doesn't care. Others feel the same. But for those of us who do feel varying degrees of loss for something we were not given a voice in about our own bodies, please respect that view as well.

Your comment about my own view as a gay male and having been with uncut men being a unique perspective is also true. This isn't a "gay" thread, I don't want to "ambush" anyone with particulars about sex acts they don't want to hear about. :D But let me say there are some distinctions and advantages to playing with uncut guys . . . . right off the top of my head the activity "docking" comes to mind. If you're curious, look it up (you've been warned). ;) I enjoy sex with uncut men a bit more, but obviously it's no dealbreaker at all . . . there's just a bit more to manipulate and enjoy. I also admit I've never known a guy "intimately" that had either physical issues (tightness) or cleanliness problems. No doubt that might skew the enjoyment quotient the other way . . . . ;)

For myself, one area I wonder about a bit is I have a somewhat chronic problem with very slight cracks in the skin behind the glans, in the "valley" of the shaft. Different things can set it off, slight rougher or long sex. It stings like an S.O.B. Leaving it alone and lathering it with skin creme with vitamin E puts things back to right after about four days, but would this be an issue if I still had the hood? Dunno . . . .

I'm certainly not a new poster here. Infact, look at my "join" date. I'm a more senior poster on this board than both rdan and oedi. Enough of this appeal to authority crap. I'm reporting this behavior.

Furthermore, I'm reporting all unnecessary and officious posting. All your pontification has done nothing for any point you may have had rdan. And oedi, the fallacy of appealing to ridicule was, to put it bluntly, rude. Not to mention the trivialization of the foreskin is grossly ignorant in the correlation that you draw.

I will no longer be warning posters of devious and red herring postings and argumentative tactics. I will simply start reporting all said behavior from here on in. I encourage others to do the same for all posters who refuse to exchange polite and on topic discourse.

[QUOTE=DVDBear;218034]People should share their personal feelings about how they feel it's changed their lives either way. If you're uncut do you feel you have an edge over someone who is? If the procedure WAS no big deal today would you opt to have it done? Why? For those of us without, what do you feel you're missing out on? Has it impacted you in a real, tangible way (or emotional, equally valid). And please, no value judgments of other people's feelings.[/QUOTE]

I agree - I think this is the way that people should have expressed their opinions on this in the first place, rather than just dictating to others what's right and what's wrong, and backing it up with extremely debatable "facts".

The point of my earlier post wasn't really to compare circumcision to haircuts. It was to point out that people can say pretty much anything to back up their opinions and present all of these arguments as facts. And you couldn't really claim that much of what I claimed wasn't at least possibly true. I chose the haircut analogy because it was close enough to the circumcision issue and was ridiculous enough to be obviously farcical...

Oh, and what's with the sudden obsession with the word "fallacy?" This isn't Judge Judy. Calling out "fallacy!" is just as weak of an argument as whatever it's directed at. I would consider that a fallacy within itself.

As a disclaimer: I'm pretty much neutral on this whole subject. I don't see circumcision as a big deal and feel that it's the parent's right to choose (which, for the foreseeable future, it is). However, I can see where the people who are against it are coming from and they have some good points. I just don't agree with how this side is presenting these points...

rdan - Nope. I mailed in my check for that P.h.d. but haven't received it yet. The infommercial said it would take about 4-6 weeks to deliver...

Not that this adds to the debate or anything, but I was about 16 the first time I saw an uncircumcised penis (in a porno, just in case you were wondering) and I just had no idea what I was even looking at. I was like, "WHAT THE HELL?" At the time, I thought they were all supposed to look the way mine looked. No one had ever explained to me what a circumcision actually was. It took me a good day (at least) to figure out that mine had been the same way but was altered...

It's kind of weird when you live with something your whole life and then realize that there was a whole different side to it that you didn't even know about...

[QUOTE=oedipussy;218043]Not that this adds to the debate or anything, but I was about 16 the first time I saw an uncircumcised penis (in a porno, just in case you were wondering) and I just had no idea what I was even looking at. I was like, "WHAT THE HELL?" At the time, I thought they were all supposed to look the way mine looked. No one had ever explained to me what a circumcision actually was. It took me a good day (at least) to figure out that mine had been the same way but was altered...

It's kind of weird when you live with something your whole life and then realize that there was a whole different side to it that you didn't even know about...[/QUOTE]
. . . . which is probably the main reason you prefer the look of a circumcised one. That isn't meant as a put down or to be condescending, it's a completely natural reaction. To be honest I felt the same way when I first saw one in my teens. My first reaction was "What wrong with that guy's dick?" The "norm" is what the majority are; in the U.S., certainly in my generation's time an uncut penis was extremely rare. But once I understood what the deal was and saw more and more of them I got to appreciate the natural look and actually prefer it. In and of itself it doesn't guarantee beautiful genitals anymore than cut does, but there's a "completeness" about it that just seems right to me now.

[QUOTE=oedipussy;218042]

Oh, and what's with the sudden obsession with the word "fallacy?" This isn't Judge Judy. Calling out "fallacy!" is just as weak of an argument as whatever it's directed at. I would consider that a fallacy within itself.
[/QUOTE]

Maybe you should read up on argumentative logical fallacies. Then you too can call them out as you see them. It's not a secret weapon that some people hold. And it's not being arrogant either. It's simply logic.

Logical Fallacies

P.S. Look up number 13 "Appeal to ridicule"

Oedi: I always have to give you a hard time about the blond doo! Billy Idol & J. Dean mix--Rebel yell!

Bear: You pose the best foresight of info sharing of "collective experiences" for all readers of the board. Good current information and personal experience is a good way to capture perceptions and thoughts!

[QUOTE=Ducy;218162]Hey hugh this was about your own opinion. not to break other peoples down or tell them why they are wrong...[/QUOTE]This brings out part of the problem with circumcision. It's Doing Something. Someone said, "Why is the foreskin removed? - Because it's there."

My opinion is that babies' genitals should be Left Alone. There's not much positive evidence you can bring forward in support of Doing Nothing, you just do it, or in other words don't do anything. So expressing my opinion does almost entirely consist of rebutting - and I hope, refuting - the opinions of others. If I had my way, nobody would have ever invented circumcision and there would be no debate. All those "even-handed" articles (typically called "To cut or not to cut") have already loaded the dice heavily in favour of circumcision. The main problem with the "debate" about circumcision is that it starts with circumcision as a given and demands that opponents prove why it shouldn't be done. This has it bass-akward. The foreskin is innocent until proved guilty.

Leaving a baby's foreskin alone - not trying to retract it to clean it - is also the best way to prevent infections.

As to my background, penile status (if any) etc. what purpose would that serve except to open the way to (more) personal attacks? I want my arguments to be answered on their own merits, not on the basis of who or what I am.