Circumcision and You

[Wings]

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////DISCLAIMER////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Ok let me first forewarn everybody here that this discussion covers a part of the male anatomy and some links to be posted do depict pictures of the circumcision process which includes infant penises. If anyone doesn't wish to see these types of pictures or finds them offencive, then don't look, simple as that. Also this is not pornographic in nature, however it is considered to be a routine operation performed on male newborns under the wishes of the child's parents. If you cannot act in an intelligable manner while debating this topic, your posts will be reported and removed. Also I would recommend if you are squeamish to the sight of blood, it is best not to click the links and navigate the pages of the website(s) I may happen to link to.[/FONT]

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////DISCLAIMER////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I have been trying to think of a good reason to post this topic since I thought it up about a week or so ago. The idea was somewhat driven since a member of rmxp.org just became a father of a brand spanking new baby boy (Sketch), and it got me to thinking about different views people have to this type of operation.
Needless to say, I found my reason while browsing through different circumcision procedures, and came upon one particularly interesting website that was completely against the process. The group views circumcision as sexual mutilation and goes as far as calling the doctors who routinely perform these types of surgeries , perverts.

Here is an interesting letter I happened to find at one website that was addressed to someone who (I believe) was expressing his opinion on the matter, which was followed by this response from a very opinionated reader:

Spoiler: Letter : Infant Circumcision, the Perfect Crime by: Uknown in Arizona

I have always despised being circumcised. Sometimes I can barely function at work. I think about suicide. Words cannot describe the rage I feel toward the pervert who did this to me. There's something deranged about anyone who persists in circumcising babies after being confronted with the facts.
I recently saw the movie Schindler's List, and it struck me that these are the same butchers who were murdering Jews in Nazi Germany. I think that every society has these "closet sadists" who emerge only when societal constraints are removed. They have now found their niche as contemporary doctors who circumcise. For a brief moment they are God, with total control over another's sexuality. It's the perfect crime.
Sanctioned by unsuspecting, misinformed parents, the hospital, and an ignorant society, they hide under the guise of a respected medical profession. And the consequences only appear years later when they are long gone and their trail cold. Some doctors really don't know any better, and when told about the gravity of their actions, stop. But some just keep on cutting. There's something really frightening about the Finks and Wiswells and Gelbaums of our society. You're right -- it's not circumcision that needs to be studied; it's circumcisers.

Is it just me or is he comparing the actions of modern doctors to that of Nazis? He wants to commit suicide because he was circumcised? *Goes to look for the extremist thread*

Now I realise that this type of operation is against some culture's beliefs as the doctor who delivered my brother didn't believe in circumcising him. However, the doctor who delivered me was the complete opposite. Some cultures do infact consider this to be human mutilation which always struck me as odd. But of course we cannot all have the same beliefs and shared opinions on matters such as these.

The question here is how can something that promotes cleanliness in males...be so bad? What drives people to express extreme views like the guy I quoted from in the spoiler? It is a fact that being circumcised is more sanitary than being uncircumcised. The risks of infection are drastically reduced in a circumcised male than they are in an uncircumcised male...so what is the harm?

People against this type of procedure say (as I said before), that this is sexual mutilation. The baby can feel extreme pain throughout the procedure and there is a lot of blood. They even managed to twist it around here and make the process seem worse than it really is.

Spoiler: Contains an image of a naked male infant that is about to be circumcised

Notice how the baby is strapped down in what they call a 'Circumstraint'. I am not sure if they still use these or not, but all it is, is a plastic tray with velcro straps that prevent the baby from moving around during the procedure. This is to limit the chances of the infant's penis being severely damaged or cut off during the operation.

http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/post1.jpg[/IMG]

The website considers this type of device to be inappropriate and inhumane.

Spoiler: Contains an image of a naked male infant being circumcised ***Blood***

As you can see...the baby does feel pain. Of course the baby is going to feel pain when a piece of skin is cut off from your body. Does any male who was circumcised remember the operation? NO.

http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/post2.jpg[/IMG]

Spoiler: Contains an image of a naked male infant right after being circumcised

Notice how the people decided to exploit the helpless expression on the baby's face. Pitiful really.

http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/post4.jpg[/IMG]

Spoiler: Contains an image of a naked male infant with a bandage on his penis after circumcision

Also notice the expression on his face...

http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/shaft-1.jpg[/IMG]

By the way, all of those pictures were taken from http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org just in case anyone is interested in looking into this further.

But in all seriousness, I am sure the operation is painful. But do I remember it when it was done to me? Ummm...ummm....no.

Anyway, what are your views, opinions on this type of procedure? It is interesting to know that there are people out there like this who believe this type of operation is an atrocity.
​

 

[ryanwh]

"Anyway, what are your views, opinions on this type of procedure? It is interesting to know that there are people out there like this who believe this type of operation is an atrocity."

How could an objective eye not to some extent? If you're familiar with the root source of anti-semitism (which most jews I've talked to in my life are) you know many anti-semites use this procedure as a springboard for anti-jewish propaganda.
Im not saying its a terrible thing. I put it about on the level of, say, eating the remains of a loved one. Sounds terrible initially, right? But tribes in Africa do it out of respect for their deceased, its not terrible or barbaric to them because they've been around it their whole lives. They're not killing anything, or mutilating anything, yet Christians killed and mutilated people who practiced it in Central America. And it would be no surprise to me if certain people in certain regions thought peircings in general were barbaric. It's all very subjective and rooted in beleif systems that really anyone NOT part of the belief system has no right to dictate(like me).
And I dont think not remembering something is liscence to be able to get away with it. In wars often children under 4 are spared because they tend not to remember, that doesnt make what they dont remember happening OK. I mean, what if the ritual was cutting a toe off of each foot? In everyday life you wouldnt be effected at all and you wouldnt remember the experience but wouldnt you like to have a say in whether or not you get to keep them toes?

 

[Sabao]

Doctors around my area don't really approve of circumcision of infants because it's supposedly riskier than circumcising an older child, so I was circumcised at a later age- at 9 or 10, if I recall. I suppose this way the kid is given a choice of whether or not he wants to be circumcised.

On a sidenote, men in my area consider circumcision a rite of passage of sorts. While you don't have to be circumcised unless you wanted to, most kids around here do so anyway when they reach the age of 8-10. It is a very painful process, and it is advisable to have a stock of pain killers on you that will last at least two-three hours after the operation.

A skirt or really baggy shorts would be advisable as well.

 

[Roman Candle]

My god, no, it is a horrible thing. The order of body parts I would lose progress in this order: Right hand little finger, left hand little finger, toes, 1 eye, 1foot, 1 kidney, foreskin. I am not joking. I'm pleading here, do not have your children circumcised. You can't know what you're missing.

Consider the fact that at a young age, the foreskin is often not completely separated from the penis. As such in an infant circumcision, it often has to be litterally torn away. This can lead to permenant problems throughout life.

At any age, a circumcision can be extremely painful, and it can take more than a month to recover from it. A boy age 8 or thereabouts in my mother's class at school had to be circumcised: He had to sit at home in bed with a box over his crotch for a week on the maximum dose of painkillers you can give a child. Then, when he about felt he was ready to put someone underwear on... It stuck. It wasn't until weeks later that he could make an appearance back at school.

Other grim issues around circumcision is the fact that the frenulum, the piece of skin which connects the glans to the foreskin, is removed. This also happens to be one of the most sensitive areas on the penis, (the most, in my opinion). Basically, if someone suggested that I had it removed, they would have pry my cold dead hands away from my cock. Also, circumcision can lead to a distortion in the shape of the penis, the glans particularly, as it leaves scar tissue behind. The opening of the Urethra can also be distorted, to the point where ejaculations are reduced to, essentially, dribbles. Also no one likes an ugly dick. That's the hard truth.

Outside of a situation where circumcision is directly neccessary because of constriction, I see no advantage to circumcision. I am eternally frustrated by the circumcision of *every single* boy that I've been with (God obviously hates me :lol: I wonder why). It's. Just. Wierd. It's not like an appendix, it's has useful function. So what is this need to mess around with it? Leave the foreskin be!

 

[Ceroscuro]

At age 9 or 10 the kid would remember it, and my guess is that is not an operation you'd want to remember. And Ryan, while not remembering it doesn't necessarily make it okay, there is better justification for circumcision than war, and circumcision is better for the well-being of the child (or at least that's the intention). Yeah it may hurt the kid at the time but a few days of pain perhaps (I don't know how long, but it can't be that long) which could improve your health for years down the road... seems worth it for me.

EDIT: Posted with Roman Candle. Response to his post:

Okay so even a few months. Still it could drastically improve sanitation and help prevent infection for years. And yes all those things (surgery-gone-wrong) can happen, but usually don't. And its function, in my opinion, isn't worth the trouble it could cause.

And yeah it's painful, but... so what? No pain no gain, and that's why I (above) was for the infant circumcision rather than circumcision as a little kid. Then it's gain and you don't even have to remember the pain.

 

[Roman Candle]

Still it could drastically improve sanitation and help prevent infection for years

But does it actually? I've never seen any evidence to support that. I can see how long in the past, it would have made a difference. But when we have the luxuary of washing every day, is it really important?

And it's not the surgery that does wrong, it's the properties of the organ you are operating on. It needs to be able to expand evenly as well as grow evenly. Cutting and tearing bits off, possibly introducing scar tissue, simply is not a good idea.

 

[Ceroscuro]

But you're not cutting the organ, you're cutting the skin. And in the cases where the skin's not yet separated, that's where... you know... the whole "doctors being trained in the field and being able to do their job" thing comes in. Yeah there'll be cases where something goes wrong, but that's true of everything (including not removing it).

 

[Wings]

But does it actually? I've never seen any evidence to support that. I can see how long in the past, it would have made a difference. But when we have the luxuary of washing every day, is it really important?

And it's not the surgery that does wrong, it's the properties of the organ you are operating on. It needs to be able to expand evenly as well as grow evenly. Cutting and tearing bits off, possibly introducing scar tissue, simply is not a good idea.

Here is a link and quote from a few sources on babies. Sketch's wife is an RN I believe so possibly he could give you some more insight on the benefits of the operation.

Baby Center Website

Circumcision does make it easier to keep the penis clean, though washing the area under the foreskin thoroughly achieves the same result. In a 1989 study by the AAP, uncircumcised boys were found to be more likely to develop urinary tract infections, sometimes serious ones (although the risk of a UTI for any male, circumcised or no, is at most 1 percent). Other arguments in favor of circumcision include concerns that an uncircumcised child will be seen as different from his friends or will feel different from his father who may be circumcised. Arguments against circumcision include the fact that the procedure is not medically necessary. Some parents believe circumcision is a form of mutilation that's painful and emotionally harmful to a child.

Here is a study from the Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. The webpage can be found here > Clicky

OBJECTIVES: Globally approximately 25% of men are circumcised for religious, cultural, medical, or parental choice reasons. However, controversy surrounds the procedure, and its benefits and risks to health. We review current knowledge of the health benefits and risks associated with male circumcision. METHODS: We have used, where available, previously conducted reviews of the relation between male circumcision and specific outcomes as "benchmarks", and updated them by searching the Medline database for more recent information. RESULTS: There is substantial evidence that circumcision protects males from HIV infection, penile carcinoma, urinary tract infections, and ulcerative sexually transmitted diseases. We could find little scientific evidence of adverse effects on sexual, psychological, or emotional health. Surgical risks associated with circumcision, particularly bleeding, penile injury, and local infection, as well as the consequences of the pain experienced with neonatal circumcision, are valid concerns that require appropriate responses. CONCLUSION: Further analyses of the utility and cost effectiveness of male circumcision as a preventive health measure should, in the light of this information, be research and policy priorities. A decision as to whether to recommend male circumcision in a given society should be based upon an assessment of the risk for and occurrence of the diseases which are associated with the presence of the foreskin, versus the risk of the complications of the procedure. In order for individuals and their families to make an informed decision, they should be provided with the best available evidence regarding the known benefits and risks.

 

[Doctor]

It's rather rare here in Québec. I suppose it's more of a cultural issue than a medical issue, really.

It seems to me like everyone wants "their" side to win, as a lot of those studies seem to contradict each other.

One says it's only a layer of skin, the other says it's 30% of sexual pleasure. One says circumcision protects from HIV (Yeah, try and have unprotected sex, see where that gets you...), the other says that's bull. One says it helps to stay clean, the other says that if you can't figure out how to clean down there, you're a moron.

My opinion is that if there's nothing wrong with it, then don't chop it off (unless it's a religious ritual or something), 'cause, you know, I can chop off my hand to make sure I'll never hit it with a hammer, but that doesn't mean it's smart.

For further reading, try wikipedia, they're great.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision (be wary of scary images)

 

[ryanwh]

Yeah it's pretty silly to try and spin it into a logically benificial act. It isnt, it wasnt when the ritual started and it doesnt NEED to be in the modern age to continue it if the primary reason is its a hereditary or religious ritual. Though I can understand descent, because if circumscision is allowed what stops another budding religion from mutilating a child in an even more obvious way in the name of religion and receiving immunity for its context.

 

[Roman Candle]

The initial study that found HIV to be reduced after circumcision was carried out ten years ago and was shortly discredited, although it seems to have had a small revival recently, (oddly enough, I heard something on the radio about it just after fist posting in this topic). As far as I can see, it's very poor science. Obviously, there will be a period of time after large numbers of adult circumcisions when transmissions drop, obviously: Men will not be having a great deal of sex. However, it was shown that after this initial period, HIV rates increased, to greater than would have been expected if no interference had been taken. Quite possibly this is the result, (not unexpected), of telling people they can continue having sex and not be at the same risk of spreading the virus. Furthermore, if circumcision significantly affected infection rates, then the US, (where a great many men are circumcised), would have a proportionally lower HIV problem than in Europe, (where many fewer men are given the snip).

I didn't mean that circumcision is 'indredibly damaging'. It's simply detrimental, and unpleasant. I mean really. The loss of the foreskin and the risks of surgery at a young age outweigh the risks of not being circumcised, which as far as I can see are "Having a slightly higher chance of developing a tract infection".

As for "leaving it on can go wrong too": Not so. If surgery leaves undesired results, then you cannot have them rectified. If there is an issue with constriction of the glans, then the foreskin can easily be removed. At that stage there would be an actual neccessity. Before that point, however, why do it? Why? "Similar results of hygine can be achieved with regular cleaning". Peer pressure? If a boy was laughing at me for having all my bodily parts, I would probably say: "You are actually proud of the fact that your cock is less sensitive? Ok. Anyway, what the hell is your obsession with dicks anyway?". Believe me, as someone who has my foreskin and all the other parts of my penis intact and takes great interest in the subject as a whole, I say you want the thing on there. Really, you do.

 

[Kest]

The only apparent drawback for abstaining from circumsion - cleanliness concerns - is something that is the result of pure negligence. Not enough justification, to me.

 

[ryanwh]

Haha, negligence.
Im sorry its just funny hearing people talk about penises like that.

 

[Kest]

???

It's just like cleaning anything else. If someone has a problem with hygiene, well...

 

[Doctor]

I'm pretty sure that what ryanwh meant is that this particular body part is rarely... ignored by its owner.

 

[Megalomania]

I was suprised when someone told me it prevented infection...
I always thought skin was there to prevent things from getting in...

Like hair...

But yeah, I don't go into this subject often, it's not my favourite :p

 

[Mr.Mo]

I'm circumsised, nothing wrong with my penis. Its functions perfect .
I was circumsied at the hospital tho, most people in Turkey are.
I don't see whats the big deal, for older kids 7-11 or more. Babies is an another deal. I don't approve it.

 

[Kest]

I don't see whats the big deal, for older kids 7-11 or more. Babies is an another deal. I don't approve it.

...wait, what?

 

[Megalomania]

7-11 year olds don't want memories of their penises being snipped.
And it could be dangerous for 11 year olds, as they would be starting puberty around then.

 

[ryanwh]

...wait, what?

Cus it'd be something someone would CHOOSE to do, at that age. At least if they were Jewish.