Bad Threads on Circumcision

[Wahoowa]

Originally Posted by pozzolane

So where is your argument that it should not be here on this website? You allude to this conclusion but you never state why. How is it not a sex issue? Are you saying that the scientific research done on the sexual function of the foreskin for males and females was to waste?

um, yeah i did. babies are not having sex. the men on this board would've already been circumcised if they ever were going to be. arguing against this now is a bit of a moot point. you want routine circumcisions of infants to stop. go to a board on parenting.

you've chosen the wrong audience. people come to this website for information on "sex tips and dating."

so therefore, it doesn't really belong. i'm not even arguing for or against it. but having so many of these threads going is getting tiring. put them where they belong.

oh, and sexual satisfaction is so subjective i can't believe that any "scientific research" can accurately be done on it. so much has to do with the relationship itself, the skill of the lover, etc. so yeah, imo, money spent on those projects would've been better served elsewhere.

[Wahoowa]

Originally Posted by pozzolane

Also, if we were to only strictly follow the tag line of the site, then why does the site allow alternative postings under headlines such as

Conception and Pregnancy

people have sex to procreate as well as recreate


General Discussion

Entertainment

i've rarely seen forums without these


Member Polls

the member polls are pretty exclusively sex related, if i remember correctly
etc...

Do you take issue with those as well?

no i don't take issue with them. i've never seen any threads there that seem to be filled with people with the main purpose of creating waves. you want change? i honestly don't think you're going to create it here.

i know i'm sounding like a broken record, but go to a parenting board. on such a board you would find women who are likely going to be pregnant. make your case to them. making it to a group of people who are largely concerned with not getting pregnant isn't going to get you anywhere. especially when the topics tend to get so heated. that tension is just further polarizing the sides.

[pozzolane]

Let's be honest. The only reason why we're being brushed off here is because the majority is either ignorant, or pro-circumcision (and usually pro because of ignorance. That used to be me.).

This is just as valid of a place for the anti-circumcision arguments as any other website. Even more so than for a parenting website.

Incase it's misunderstood, we don't think that parents should have the right to cut parts off of their baby boys genitals. Therefore, this is NOT a parenting issue. It's a human rights issue. And therefore it's free to discuss everywhere as we are all humans and should all have rights. Especially rights to ones own body. If someone wants to be circumcised later in life when they can make that decision on their own, then all power to them. But never should it be acceptable to be forced apon someone. Especially an infant.

If you don't like these posts, then don't come in and read them. It's as simple as that. I've been around this board for 3 years. I know what goes on here, and it's not all "sex tips and dating advice".

If you have something positive and polite to share for the pro-circ side, then by all means share it. But I'm getting sick and tired of being brushed off first as "net guerilla's" and "hijackers" and now as irrelevant nut jobs who should be preaching to someone else and not around the good ol people at sexinfo101.com.

[Hugh7]

Originally Posted by JustAGirl

There are also groups of Jewish atheists, which similarly goes against Biblical commandment. I'm not sure what point you intend to prove.

I'm not sure why you brought up the "biblicality" of circumcision - except that it just underlines how this topic goes all over the place, and it seems impossible to discuss one aspect without someone bringing in any of the others.

Paul was not the only Christian out there.

As a non-christian, I couldn't agree more (especially for his hatred of women and sex), but he reportedly wrote most of the Greek scriptures ("New Testament") which are part of the Bible to all Christians, even those who reject them.

However, it is in the Qu'ran that Allah spoke to Muhammed, commanding him to... "'Follow the religion of Ibrahim, the upright in Faith'" (16:123), that being Judaism, which circumsizes.

By which logic, Muslims should be indistinguishable from Jews. That would solve a lot of problems! But if you're going to quote the Qu'ran, don't forget:

He created everything in exact measure; He precisely designed everything

(25:2)

He designed you, and designed you well.

(40:64)

He created the heavens and the earth for a specific purpose, designed you and perfected your design.

(64:3)

He created man in the best design.

(95:4)

[Satan said:] " I will mislead them, I will entice them, I will command them to mark the ears of livestock, and I will command them to distort the creation of GOD."

(4:119)

We did not leave anything out of this book.

(6:38)

The word of your lord is complete, in truth and justice. Nothing shall abrogate His words. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.

(6:115)

Say, "Did you note how GOD sends down to you all kinds of provisions, then you render some of them unlawful, and some lawful? Say, Did God give you permission to do this? Or, do you fabricate lies and attribute them to God?"

(10:59)

Not if you're one of the 8% of uncircumcized males diagnosed with relative phimosis.

Where do you get that figure (which is still less than one man in 12)? If it's from Brian Morris or Jake Waskett, forget it. And relative to what?

I recall my ex-boyfriend, who was uncut, saying that he was unable to retract his foreskin until the age of 14 which led to much discomfort on his part. While that situation was later resolved it was difficult for him to clean the area leading to smegma buildup.

I sympathise. Ignorance of the intact genitalia is rampant in cultures where circumcision is prevalent. In most of the world, someone would have told him how to gently stretch his foreskin till it retracted easily.

One man's fun is another man's pain.

Not in general, and certainly not in this case. The VAST majority of men enjoy playing with their bits.

My experiences with smegma are not only limited to that of humans but also of horses. Regardless, smegma is an oily substance, and water does not completely remove oils. Remember, like dissolves like.

Yes, the much-maligned smegma is a natural lubricant, and there is no need to be fanatical about removing it. (Does every last trace have to be removed from horses? How do they manage in the wild?)

Certainly your right and I understand your reasoning, but bacteria grow in dark, moist environments. Enter the foreskin, under which is a bacterium's dreamland. Uncut boys below the mean age of first foreskin retraction (approximately 10 if I recall correctly from a Danish study, which I'll find when I get the chance) show a higher incidence of penile bacterial infections than do their circumcised peers. The following study on balanitis also mentions the foreskin's role in promoting bacteria growth: http://www.circs.org/library/waskett3/index.html

Yes, Jake Waskett is an acolyte of Brian Morris. That is not a study, it's a careful selection of the literature. The way people describe men's foreskins in this class of literature reminds me of how (mainly clerical) people described women's bodies (and especially those parts, in very oblique terms) 200+ years ago.

I'm inclined to trust the perspective of the WHO, NIH, and CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/fac...rcumcision.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6176209.stm

Look at their references and you'll find the same small coterie of circumcision enthusiasts at work. Normally, one would expect those august bodies to offer a logical, reasoned and compassionate approach, but circumcision (as you touched on at the beginning) is in a class of its own and gets favoured treatment for irrational reasons. We're talking about men's bits here, and men are very unwilling to admit that anything is the matter with their bits.

[oedipussy]

I'm not sure what there is to even debate on this subject - you either feel one way or the other way.

So, that's all it is then...? Just personal feelings on a somewhat controversial topic? And no one's opinion is really right or wrong? You mean that it's all just subjective? Really...? It is? Well, that's just SHOCKING.

[Hugh7]

Originally Posted by oedipussy

I'm not sure what there is to even debate on this subject - you either feel one way or the other way.

This would be true if circumcision was a natural phenomenon like penis size or breast size, or the result of an accident like most amputations. We could discuss the advantages and disadvantages in a fairly detached manner, and the options if people wanted to change. But that ignores the fact that circumcision is something someone decided to do to some of us, without giving us any say in the matter. That makes it a bit different. Changing people's minds about it will affect the outcomes for third parties yet unborn.

Circumcision is not entirely irreversible, and the option of foreskin restoration is certainly appropriate on a sex advice board. But it is by no means reversible enough to make the decision to do it (to someone else) the trivial tossup than many people seem to think it is.

[ml66uk]

Originally Posted by oedipussy

Pozzolane - is there a specific "fallacy" for posting TOTAL CRAP like "routine circumcision was started in the United States as a way to keep little boys from masturbating"? Because if so, I'd like to formally accuse you of it...

Not only is that just one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read (citation? Didn't think so...) - It makes no logical sense whatsoever. I can masturbate just fine without a foreskin, thank you very much.

We wouldn't even be having this discussion if it weren't for the fact that 19th century doctors thought that :
a) masturbation caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tubercolosis etc), and
b) circumcision stopped masturbation.

Both of those sound ridiculous today I know, but as well as the link that was posted earlier, you could also check out this:
A Short History of Circumcision in North America In the Physicians' Own Words

Over a hundred years later, people keep looking for new ways to defend the practice.

---

I notice that there have been a few suggestions that the intactivists here must have some kind of mental issues. You may be interested to know that similar attacks are made in countries where they cut girls. People against are frequently derided as being ignorant, having too much time on their hands, or having some kind of psychological problem for being against what is perceived as such a small and common procedure with such obvious benefits.

It wasn't intactivists that started the supposedly "bad threads" that prompted this thread btw. For anyone interested they weren't deleted, and can be found here:

1) Circumcisions & cervical cancer - whats the greater good?
2) Type of circumcision?

Anyone on this thread may also be interested in this thread:
Policy statements on circumcision of medical organisations

[Brandye]

I hold the mods responsible for allowing the hijacking and continued abuse of threads for a special interest group. The original question was treatment of balanitis. My response was attacked and we were off and running with the focus shifted to routine circumcision.

If the mods (T&S) do not take action, I shall, by leaving a board that allows such abuse.

[pozzolane]

Originally Posted by Brandye

**Quote removed**

--comment deleted--

Your reply to the original question of balanitis was in another thread. And your advice was:

Originally Posted by Brandye

All are more alike than different. Whether or not there is a noticeable difference is not known because once it is done men do not have it redone. Your primary interest should be in preventing a recurrence of the balanitis. The rest is more doctors selling their service than real in the outcome. Discuss your concerns with your surgeon and I am certain he could give you a heart shaped fringe if you wish.

Good for you taking this step. Balanitis is one of many conditions that can be cleared up with circumcision. As a woman, I think there are other equally important benefits for your friends of the future.

Do not be too concerned with the previous post. There are over 100 varieties of HPV. There are only a few of these that cause problems. And if you look around you will find several threads on circumcision (as recently as yesterdy) containing more emotion than reality. It is not a last resort; it is the best treatment available for your problem. And that is a European view!

Here is a recommended treatment for balanitis according to an online medical website:

Originally Posted by http://www.healthscout.com/ency/68/404/main.html#TreatmentofBalanitis

Treatment of Balanitis
Since anaerobic conditions are necessary for growth of the offending organisms, simple exposure to air and local cleansing is most often effective. Formerly, this treatment, used with peroxide powder and arsphenamine and, in severe cases, a dorsal slit, was the extent of therapy. With the advent of penicillin and other systemic and local antibiotics, the treatment is specific and effective; however, even now a dorsal slit procedure is sometimes necessary.

Note the radical difference in treatment between what is suggested by Brandye (a known circumcision advocate) and another medical source. Why do you choose circumcision so quickly with no specific information regarding the patients diagnosis? The only balanitis that often requires circumcision that I'm aware of is Zoon's.

He says it's reoccurring for him, but maybe because he's not washing thoroughly enough? Shouldn't circumcision be the very last step? Or should I refer you to the BMA's (another European view point) policy again, where it's implied that your advice is unethical and inappropriate considering that there could be better and less invasive treatments available for this patients condition.

[pozzolane]

Originally Posted by ml66uk

Both of those sound ridiculous today I know, but as well as the link that was posted earlier, you could also check out this:
A Short History of Circumcision in North America In the Physicians' Own Words
[/url]

Thanks for providing that link ml66uk. Great info.

Let me quote from the link provided by ml:

I suggest that all male children should be circumcised. This is "against nature," but that is exactly the reason why it should be done. Nature intends that the adolescent male shall copulate as often and as promiscuously as possible, and to that end covers the sensitive glans so that it shall be ever ready to receive stimuli. Civilization, on the contrary, requires chastity, and the glans of the circumcised rapidly assumes a leathery texture less sensitive than skin. Thus the adolescent has his attention drawn to his penis much less often. I am convinced that masturbation is much less common in the circumcised. With these considerations in view it does not seem apt to argue that "God knows best how to make little boys.

[R.W. Cockshut. Circumcision. British Medical Journal. 1935;2:764.]