circumcision in usa

D_Ulmer Uncut

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Posts
19
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
36
Parent's have a right to have medical procedures performed if they feel it in the best interest of their child. What child do you know that would consent to removal of his tonsils? Here's an idea...MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. You don't have the right to tell parents not to circumcise their sons. If you don't want to have your sons(s) circumcised, good for you, don't shove your views down the throats of others.
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
125
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
Parent's have a right to have medical procedures performed if they feel it in the best interest of their child. What child do you know that would consent to removal of his tonsils?
I imagine if he were sick, he'd probably not have a problem with that. Comparing that to removing healthy, highly functional tissue is another ridiculous analogy.

Here's an idea...MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. You don't have the right to tell parents not to circumcise their sons. If you don't want to have your sons(s) circumcised, good for you, don't shove your views down the throats of others.
No one's shoved any views down anyone's throat. Instead of popping up in every circumcision thread with the same predictable rudeness and vitriol, you should really consider taking your own advice.
 

Charles Finn

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Posts
2,431
Media
26
Likes
202
Points
193
Location
Toledo Ohio
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
but why is it the parents choice to remove part of a boys body that a parent has no right to remove?
if he wants to have it done when he is older then fine but there is really no need to have it removed
 

B_RedDude

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Posts
1,929
Media
0
Likes
82
Points
183
Location
California
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I was asked on Castro St. on Sunday to sign a petition to put on the fall ballot a measure to ban circumcision in San Francisco. I've been told that circumcision removes a lot of potential sexual pleasure from a male, but I'm still not ready to commit to having it legally banned, so I didn't sign.
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
125
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
I was asked on Castro St. on Sunday to sign a petition to put on the fall ballot a measure to ban circumcision in San Francisco. I've been told that circumcision removes a lot of potential sexual pleasure from a male, but I'm still not ready to commit to having it legally banned, so I didn't sign.
I assume you're referring to RIC (routine infant circumcision) and not medically necessary or elective adult circumcision? What do you think the prospects are for something like that passing in San Francisco, or Berkeley for that matter? I'm not sure that a legal ban is wise or even feasible at this point either, certainly not nationally, though if I were in SF I would sign the petition and vote for it, to make a statement if nothing else.

I think it will be at least a decade, probably several, before this becomes a generally accepted legal restriction in the US, though I expect it to come eventually. Meanwhile, I expect RIC to become increasingly rare. People need a lot more educating to overcome tradition, cutural conditioning, and personal bias before they'll accept a legal restriction, and no one here needs to be reminded it's a highly volatile issue. A ballot petition drive will certainly cause people to focus on the issue though and no doubt raise consciousness for many. I wonder if that isn't the ultimate goal of the sponsors?
 

Branleur49008

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Posts
152
Media
1
Likes
25
Points
103
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I linked to the article that was referenced early on in this thread and noticed that the largest area of non-circumcision in the US seemed to be the Western and Southwestern states, all of which tend to have a significant Hispanic population. Hispanics/Latinos are seldom cut and I have to wonder if the increasing Hispanic heritage in the US has something in part to do with the decrease in the circumcision rate. Personally, I thought it was good news to see that it is now estimated to be around 33%. I'm Jewish so there's no chance my parents would have considered not circumcising me, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. I just think that outside of a religious context, there is little reason for infants to be subjected to unnatural mutilation of their genitals. Truth be told I think religion is a retarded reason to hack off a child's foreskin as well, but there's no amount of resistance that is going to change the color of that horse.
 
S

SirConcis

Guest
The 33% number exists because it doesn't count circumcisions done seperately from the childbirth "contract". So it is underreporting the real number of boys getting the snip shortly after birth. What the real number is, I don't know. I think it is closer to 50 or 60%, and in some areas would still be at 80%.

Circumcision is primarily cosmetic in nature when you really think about it. It is supported by other reasons, such as social, medical, preventative etc. Biut at the end of the day, it is because parents prefer the cut look and want their son to have that improved look. They don't see it as mutilation, they see it as an improvement.

Considering that it does have medical benefits, when parents choose to get son done for cosmetic reasons, then the medical benefits are added for additional benefits.

Just because medical benefits alone do not justify widespread circumcision does not mean that when combined with other reasons, circumcision becomes justified. But this also means that the other reaons come from non medical (aka parents).
 

eurotop40

Admired Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Posts
4,430
Media
0
Likes
977
Points
333
Location
Zurich (Switzerland)
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
...
Circumcision is primarily cosmetic in nature when you really think about it. It is supported by other reasons, such as social, medical, preventative etc. Biut at the end of the day, it is because parents prefer the cut look and want their son to have that improved look. They don't see it as mutilation, they see it as an improvement...

Hum, yeah, and then the parents let their kids get overweight, so that the cosmetic effect is pathetic.
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
125
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
The 33% number exists because it doesn't count circumcisions done seperately from the childbirth "contract". So it is underreporting the real number of boys getting the snip shortly after birth. What the real number is, I don't know. I think it is closer to 50 or 60%, and in some areas would still be at 80%.
Can you provide any independent data, such as was provided in that other thread, to support your opinions? Why are you so intent on trying to discount the fact that fewer and fewer infant circumcisions are performed every year -- basing your belief on nothing but your own intuition and personal bias? What do you have to gain from that?

Circumcision is primarily cosmetic in nature when you really think about it.
This is probably the only thing you've ever said on this issue that I agree with.

It is supported by other reasons, such as social, medical, preventative etc. Biut at the end of the day, it is because parents prefer the cut look and want their son to have that improved look. They don't see it as mutilation, they see it as an improvement.
How do you "improve" on nature? Don't you think that smacks of hubris? Can you name a few more perfectly healthy, functional body parts that are routinely chopped off in order to "improve" the human animal? Can you name even one?

Considering that it does have medical benefits, when parents choose to get son done for cosmetic reasons, then the medical benefits are added for additional benefits.

Just because medical benefits alone do not justify widespread circumcision does not mean that when combined with other reasons, circumcision becomes justified. But this also means that the other reaons come from non medical (aka parents).
You say it has "medical benefits" as if that's a given. It's not. The conclusions that suggest circumcision has any medical benefit whatsoever are based on weak and suspect science at best, if not totally bogus. There is other evidence to suggest that circumcision may actually result in the opposite effect put forward in those very limited recommendations. Furthermore, the recommendations are for a very few, very specific sub-Saharan African societies and don't translate to American social/sexual/hygienic practices at all. Advancing this as a justification for routine infant circumcision in the US is just clutching at straws.
 
Last edited:

B_tim001

1st Like
Joined
Jan 15, 2011
Posts
30
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
41
Location
Europe
Gender
Male
Do you have any kind of private clinic and perform circes?? Is that the reason u promote it?? Or are you just unsatisfied being mutilated

The 33% number exists because it doesn't count circumcisions done seperately from the childbirth "contract". So it is underreporting the real number of boys getting the snip shortly after birth. What the real number is, I don't know. I think it is closer to 50 or 60%, and in some areas would still be at 80%.

Circumcision is primarily cosmetic in nature when you really think about it. It is supported by other reasons, such as social, medical, preventative etc. Biut at the end of the day, it is because parents prefer the cut look and want their son to have that improved look. They don't see it as mutilation, they see it as an improvement.

Considering that it does have medical benefits, when parents choose to get son done for cosmetic reasons, then the medical benefits are added for additional benefits.

Just because medical benefits alone do not justify widespread circumcision does not mean that when combined with other reasons, circumcision becomes justified. But this also means that the other reaons come from non medical (aka parents).
 

Charles Finn

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Posts
2,431
Media
26
Likes
202
Points
193
Location
Toledo Ohio
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
there is still no valid reason to have it done.
should we chop an ear or toe in the name of god
this is outdated mutilation pure and simple we have soap and running water we can wash now
let the owner decide what to do with his cock
 

D_Ulmer Uncut

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Posts
19
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
36
Hey Max, since you are so intent on calling people out, here's the article that discusses the methodology of the study:

Steep Drop Seen in Circumcisions in U.S. - NYTimes.com

I quote, "The numbers are based on calculations by SDI Health, a company in Plymouth Meeting, Pa., that analyzes health care data; they do not include procedures outside hospitals (like most Jewish ritual circumcisions) or not reimbursed by insurance."

As you can see, the number does NOT include circumcisions done in doctor's hospitals or not paid by insurance.
 

Charles Finn

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Posts
2,431
Media
26
Likes
202
Points
193
Location
Toledo Ohio
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
the ones who are in favor of the chop almost never listen with an open mind
there mind is made up chop it off it is just useless skin anyway
to those of us that know better it is not just useless skin
 

mandoman

Cherished Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Posts
3,454
Media
0
Likes
324
Points
148
Location
MA
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Thus we can go to infinity. Most discussion theme in fact is personal-family decision.
Nobody can not refute the opinion of the other.
Facts are that circumcision is several thousand years old tradition,Jews and Muslims do it always,Americans do it about 100 years.Almost 70% african people are circumcised without religious reason.On the other side Latin-Americans and Europeans are never circumcised,except Bosnia and Turkey.
In this way we only can (personaly) agree or disagree with circumcision,Of course without insulting someone's feelings or tradition.

And foreskins are 120 million years old on mammals, 4.7 million years old on humans.