posted
At least if you change your mind about a piercing, you can remove the earring or other metal parts and let the hole close back up over time. It leaves a small scar, not a missing body part, you know? There's a difference.
I'm not particularly in favor of parents having their kids pierced before the kid is old enough to decide. But it's a lot less bad than parents cutting off parts of their kids' bodies.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The use of the word mutilation is itself highly inflammatory.
OED defines mutilation as
quote:The act or process of disabling or maiming a person by wounding a limb or organ.
I think it serious hyperbole to claim that circumcision is disabling or maiming. There is no conclusive evidence that circumcision decreases sexual pleasure and certainly none that it decreases function. Circumcision is certainly an unnecessary medical procedure and I can see reasons why people would find it undesirable -- but calling it "mutilation" is really over the top.
Couldn't we settle on a civil noninflammatory term like "alteration" that does not automatically label those who disagree as evil?
For decades in the US, circumcision was recommended by most physicians for health reasons and was widely accepted as the social norm. The medical opinions have changed and social norms in the US are changing too, but that doesn't change the past. Even if you think circumcision is undesirable, it seems unfair to condemn parents who chose to do what doctors recommended and everyone else did because decades later we question the validity of that medical opinion.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Couldn't we settle on a civil noninflammatory term like "alteration" that does not automatically label those who disagree as evil?
I second that request.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:At least if you change your mind about a piercing, you can remove the earring or other metal parts and let the hole close back up over time. It leaves a small scar, not a missing body part, you know? There's a difference.
Not unless you change your mind before the piercing has fully healed. I had my ears pierced when I was a teenager. I don't regret it but earing bother my ears so I haven't worn earrings on a regular basis for at least 25 years and my holes have not closed back up. I do occasionally wear them when I'm getting really dressed up for something formal but that happens very rarely. I'm sure I haven't worn earrings in over a year now and the holes are still there.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I watched a circumcision during my pediatrics rotation and I found it horrible to watch. I am pretty sure they used a glucose dropper and no anesthesia. It was also well known among the residents that this very quick procedure was worth money to the hospital ($400+ as mentioned by someone else earlier). There are several methods of circumcision including the gomco clamp (here is how it is used), disposable clamp, and free form. Drawings of penises included above but no photographs.
Of course there are a lot of procedures that could easily fall under the category "barbaric" or "gross" of which I felt this was one. Others included drilling into bones, skin grafting, liver biopsy at the bedside, and wound care in the vascular surgery dept.
I wouldn't choose it to be done. I think the medical benefits are miniscule compared to the seriousness of the procedure.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure you'd feel the same way if someone chopped off your labia minora, likewise a flap of skin.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, "parents cutting off parts of their kids' bodies" is wrong, but its okay if they think its what God wants?
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: So, "parents cutting off parts of their kids' bodies" is wrong, but its okay if they think its what God wants?
That's surprising to you? Many religions view killing as wrong, unless god says it's okay. Why would circumcision be different?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's mutilation, clear and simple. It's only accepted because people think it's normal...just like female genital mutilation is accepted in certain parts of the world because, hey, it's what everyone does!
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: rivka, I'm not against religious circumcision, just to make it clear.
How do you justify this? If we were talking about female circumcision or the amputation of a finger conducted in accordance with a religion, I assume that you would condemn them?
Presumably the key issue is that, for the vast majority of boys circumcised, there is no degradation in quality of life. And this is true whether the circumcision is done for religious reasons or not.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:SUBJECTS AND METHODS The study included 373 sexually active men, of whom 255 were circumcised and 118 were not. Of the 255 circumcised men, 138 had been sexually active before circumcision, and all were circumcised at >20 years of age. As the Brief Male Sexual Function Inventory does not specifically address the quality of sex life, questions were added to compare sexual and masturbatory pleasure before and after circumcision.
RESULTS There were no significant differences in sexual drive, erection, ejaculation, and ejaculation latency time between circumcised and uncircumcised men. Masturbatory pleasure decreased after circumcision in 48% of the respondents, while 8% reported increased pleasure. Masturbatory difficulty increased after circumcision in 63% of the respondents but was easier in 37%. About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision.
posted
Eh. Self-reported effects on a small sample. And an atypical one at that, since not many people are circumsized as adults.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This looks interesting. I can't view the link, so will hold off commenting until I read at least a bit more of the paper.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted March 13, 2009 06:55 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by rivka:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Tatiana: It leaves a small scar, not a missing body part, you know? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you call the foreskin if it's not a body part?
Hyperbole to me is getting punched in the mouth so hard that the teeth get rammed down your throat making it necessary to sit on your food to eat it. But what do I know about subtle hyperbole? Then that might be an oxymoron.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I apologize, the subject is foreskins and one should try and stick to the subject so here goes. Has anyone ever wondered what they do with those fresh little baby foreskins? Perhaps they go for human stem cell research. I can just see a scientist saying “pass me another foreskin.” But again they probably say “pass me another placenta.” I am sure that foreskins are really useful for those who run around naked in the brush as long as they pull it back and wash it once in a while. Then in that society when a young man is ready to go out on a date his mom might ask him "Did you pull it back and wash under your foreskin?"
Posts: 83 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oshki, This is funny stuff to me, and I'm not referring to an uncomfortable because we're talking about foreskin and circumcision funny.
I don't view the process of removing foreskin from the penis as amputation, though I understand why some might, since it's the physical removal of a portion of the body- then again so is trimming finger and toe nails, or cutting of one's hair.
I think of circumcision as a means of improvement, or as a solution to some problems. This discussion is often religion heavy, since if I'm correct it was first practiced within religious cultures. The Jewish people have specialists, and ceremonies, and Catholics have even had their movments with circumcision, though no fancy ceremonies. I understand one religious reason for starting circumcision was the belief having the foreskin caused arrousal and impure actions or thoughts. Religion gurus, If I'm wrong, please correct me.
Now speaking Medically (no, I'm not a doctor), the foreskin can harbor certain bacteria and disease, therefore its removal would alleviate the necessity for extra attention to that area in the shower, and possible infections.
For that reason, and that reason mostly, my wife and I decided to have our son circumcised (just like his daddy- the other reason).
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have heard, and this is anecdotal at best, that circumcisions performed on newborns in the hospital are considerably more painful and inexpertly done — more barbaric if you like — than those performed at a bris. Wouldn't surprise me at all.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
I understand one religious reason for starting circumcision was the belief having the foreskin caused arrousal and impure actions or thoughts. Religion gurus, If I'm wrong, please correct me.
Definitely not the Jewish reason. But it is why many Christians in the United States began doing it in the 1800s and forward.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, the debate in my house is over, thanks to British television. We were watching The Girls Guide to 21st Century Sex, a very educational series that was broadcast in the UK. After seeing all the foreskin in the UK, my wife no longer fears it.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
I understand one religious reason for starting circumcision was the belief having the foreskin caused arrousal and impure actions or thoughts. Religion gurus, If I'm wrong, please correct me.
Definitely not the Jewish reason. But it is why many Christians in the United States began doing it in the 1800s and forward.
I stated pages ago that they started doing it mainstreamly, if that is the right word to prevent masturbation. But it works as well as graham crackers and cereal.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is rather off subject, but does anyone know exactly why they thought that would work? I mean, if a forskin is not required for sex, then how would it prevent masturbation?
Obviously, various religions (including Christianity) have done absolutely ridiculous things in the past. They don't always have logical reasons for them. However, usually there is at least a "pretend" reason for them - such as "Witches float - throw her into the pond". What possible evidence could there be that circumcision prevented masturbation??
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Originally posted by Stephan, Definitely not the Jewish reason. But it is why many Christians in the United States began doing it in the 1800s and forward. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't saying anything as for the reasons why the Jewish community decided to turn circumcision into the ceremony it has become. I actually have no idea, and am interested - in case there are any Jewish people in this forum who know.
As for the masturbation- I don't know why someone thought the removal of the foreskin would control or stop masturbation. Maybe uncircumcised guys are masturbating fools. Is anyone in this forum uncircumcised who is also addicted to masturbation that might know the answer to this question?
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, removing the most sensitive part of the penis probably does reduce masturbation. There's always going to be one or two men who could go either way - masturbate, or read the Bible - and who would have decided the other way if they had their foreskin. Whether the effect is measurably large is a different question.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Actually, removing the most sensitive part of the penis probably does reduce masturbation. There's always going to be one or two men who could go either way - masturbate, or read the Bible - and who would have decided the other way if they had their foreskin. Whether the effect is measurably large is a different question.
The foreskin is the most sensitive part? I was under the impression that the flap itself is not very sensitive while the head is the most sensitive part. Of course I don't have a flap myself to compare but do you have any sort of link regarding this?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it's the most sensitive part of mine, anyway. The head may be the most sensitive part of circumsized men's, in the same way that the breasts are the most erogenous zone of circumsized women.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: What possible evidence could there be that circumcision prevented masturbation??
The earlier study hints at a possible mechanism.
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: ... Masturbatory pleasure decreased after circumcision in 48% of the respondents, while 8% reported increased pleasure. Masturbatory difficulty increased after circumcision in 63% of the respondents but was easier in 37%. About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision.
So no foreskin protecting the head, makes it less sensitive, decreases pleasure, and reduces sex drive.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus: Do you have a link to that study? I am curious as to how soon after circumcision the respondents took the survey.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The effect of circumcision on masturbation is interesting, as preventing masturbation was one of the main original reasons often cited for the popularity of circumcision in America. The frequency of masturbation seems to have decreased only slightly after circumcision, but there was a striking difference in the pleasure of masturbation, with 48% reporting less pleasure from masturbation after circumcision, in contrast to 8% who reported more pleasure. We think that this is one of the most important findings of the present study. This is consistent with more men finding masturbation more difficult after circumcision, possibly because of the loss of the foreskin.
posted
masturbated as babies? I'm joking, but there are always going to be reasons not to accept the data for any of these studies due to the unlikely possibility of a randomized controlled trial. There are too many confounding factors in comparing masturbation frequency in two populations that chose to get or not get a circumcision.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Circumcision is practiced shortly after birth, so those who have been circumcized don't know any different. I bet if you ask 100 males who had been circumcized at birth if they enjoy sex and masturbation (if they masturbate at all), that 100 males would say "yes," and possibly all in unison. Now go back to those 100 males and ask them if they enjoy sex better NOW that they are circumcised or when they were uncircumcised. Of course, they don't know the difference because they were circumcized as babies, and I'm sure they are quite happy with their sex lives, or quite sufficiently pleasured during sex and/or masturbation.
Those who were circumcized as adults have more variables to associate to the study, in fact so many that getting actual reliable results would be difficult if not impossible. All males have psychology. They might have had a perfectly fine circumcision, but can't get over the idea their penis was opperated on. Perhaps some in the above study have allowed their partner's opinions to affect their own either subconsciously or consciously. I'm just saying, too many variables to factor.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a frenulum where the foreskin has a particular attachment to the head and a particular mucosal ridge rich with sensory cells that can get snipped during circumcision, moreso with some methods than others. I was trained to avoid that to preserve as much sensation as possible.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: There is a frenulum where the foreskin has a particular attachment to the head and a particular mucosal ridge rich with sensory cells that can get snipped during circumcision, moreso with some methods than others. I was trained to avoid that to preserve as much sensation as possible.
Ah Claudia, preserver of male orgasms, if only those whom you saved could thank you. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope whomever performed my circumcision did so with as much care and accuracy as you with your patients. Of course, I don't know any different and seem to do alright for myself, but I hope the procedure was done right.
Claudia, are you a surgeon then? What's your specialty?
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
