Scientists: circumcision = male genital mutilation and should be outlawed

B_johnschlong

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
653
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
163
Gender
Male
Interesting debate here:
Public release date: 7-Dec-2007
[ Print Article | E-mail Article | Close Window ]

Contact: Emma Dickinson
edickinson@bmj.com
44-020-738-36529

BMJ-British Medical Journal


There is now rarely a therapeutic indication for infant circumcision, yet ritual (non-therapeutic) male circumcision continues unchecked throughout the world, long after female circumcision, facial scarification, and other ritual forms of infant abuse have been made illegal, writes Geoff Hinchley, a consultant at Barnet & Chase Farm NHS Trust.


The law and principles pertaining to child protection should apply equally to both sexes, so why do society and the medical profession collude with this unnecessary mutilating practise, he asks.


In addition to religious justification, there have been many spurious and now unsupported claims for circumcision including the prevention of penile cancer, masturbation, blindness, and insanity, most of which relate to adult sexual behaviour and not to the genital anatomy or best interest of a child, he adds.


There may be a case that male circumcision reduces HIV risk in sexually active adults, however the decision on whether an individual wishes to have this procedure should be left until they are old enough to make their own informed health care choices.


Male genital mutilation is not a risk-free procedure, he adds. Far from being a harmless traditional practice, circumcision damages young boys.
And in terms of legal protection, he argues that both the US and the UK legal systems discriminate between the sexes when it comes to protecting boys and girls from damaging ritual genital mutilation.


The unpalatable truth is that logic and the rights of the child play little part in determining the acceptability of male genital mutilation in our society, he writes. The profession needs to recognise this and champion the argument on behalf of boys that was so successful for girls.


But Kirsten Patrick of the BMJ argues that, if competently performed, circumcision carries little risk and cannot be compared with female circumcision.


Although any surgical operation can be painful and do harm, the pain of circumcision, if done under local anaesthesia, is comparable to that from an injection for immunisation, she writes.


In terms of evidence of benefit, male circumcision has been associated with a reduced risk of sexually transmitted infections, such as human papilloma virus, chancroid and syphilis. Robust research has also shown that circumcision can reduce the spread of HIV.


And although the complication rate for infant circumcision is essentially unknown (because most operations are unregistered) data suggest that it is between 0.2% and 3%, with most complications being minor. Furthermore, she says, no robust research exists examining the long term psychological effects of male infant circumcision.


Despite the fact that no medical body advocates routine male infant circumcision, most agree that it is safe and acceptable and recommend that the procedure is carried out by a competent operator using adequate anaesthesia.


Male circumcision is not illegal anywhere in the world. It is a choice that parents will make on behalf of their male children, for cultural or other reasons, and regulating its provision is the wisest course of action, she concludes.


An accompanying clinical review concludes that medical indications for male circumcision in both childhood and adulthood are rare, but that complications can be drastic.
###​
Is infant male circumcision an abuse of the rights of the child?

I have nothing against male genital mutilation per se, provided it is done on medical grounds.

But I once said here at LPSG that I don't agree with the ritualist, traditionalist reasons given for the practise, because they can be correlated to barbaric and dangerous cultures and worldviews (monotheism, protestantism, victorianism).

Some bashed me for thinking so, but I see that scientists use the same terms: "male genital mutilation", "ritualistic", etc...

So only in case of medical necessity, else, don't circumcise your son, its cruel, outdated and limits pleasure.
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
It's about time this question was raised. I agree completely with the position in the paper. Short of true medical necessity, circumcision should not be performed on a minor incapable of legal informed consent.
 

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
41
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
But I once said here at LPSG that I don't agree with the ritualist, traditionalist reasons given for the practise, because they can be correlated to barbaric and dangerous cultures and worldviews (monotheism, protestantism, victorianism).

communism? Marxism? fascism? johnschlongism? beingafuckwittrollism? Aren't those the more dangerous forces at work in the world? and Victorianism- yeah.. definitely correlates with barbarism. Are you using a computer made out of coconuts and switchgrass? Your ability to spread your idiocy online owes much to the industrial revolution.
 

Not_Punny

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Posts
5,464
Media
109
Likes
3,056
Points
258
Location
California
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Gentlemen, I think Mr. Schlong has posted a perfectly reasonable post.

And I believe that "Victorianism", as Mr. Schlong is using it, is referring to people who operate on outdated principles of suppressing sexuality and any expression of it.

I also agree with the basis of the debate: I believe a man should have a choice on whether he is cut or not.
 

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
41
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Gentlemen, I think Mr. Schlong has posted a perfectly reasonable post.

And I believe that "Victorianism", as Mr. Schlong is using it, is referring to people who operate on outdated principles of suppressing sexuality and any expression of it.

I also agree with the basis of the debate: I believe a man should have a choice on whether he is cut or not.

bullshit. He's a worthless troll and always will be. His trollish tendencies are clearly evinced AGAIN in the inflammatory language of the subject heading of this thread, and no doubt the ulterior motive here is to once again bash the USA since circumcision is prevalent there. When he's not jerking off to trans porn that's all this jagoff knows how to do. Go to his profile and click "find all threads started by johnschlong" and see for yourself how each and every one of them turns out, if they get any attention at all. He sometimes starts out trying to sound reasonable... then it devolves from there.
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Well, yeah it's inflammatory but I look at the data presented separately from the presenter. I have no desire to debate the poster when the post itself is worthwhile. This is an ethics discussion in my book.
 

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
41
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Well, yeah it's inflammatory but I look at the data presented separately from the presenter. I have no desire to debate the poster when the post itself is worthwhile. This is an ethics discussion in my book.

one that has been discussed already on this board AD NAUSEUM and there is absolutely no good reason to bring up again, other than to be a troll.
 

Not_Punny

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Posts
5,464
Media
109
Likes
3,056
Points
258
Location
California
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
I know that some of his threads have been the cause of much hair-pulling. Does that mean that everything is that way?

I don't see it in this one.

I am completely willing to be wrong, but this particular thread doesn't seem to be that way, and it doesn't seem fair to paint him with tar just because he piped up.
 

Not_Punny

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Posts
5,464
Media
109
Likes
3,056
Points
258
Location
California
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
NIC, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. :tongue:

You are right about those threads.

But I think I am right about this thread.

- - - - - - -

Mr. Schlong -- wherever you are -- my apologies for talking about you as if you aren't even present. I'm sure you're out there.

And I'm sure that in due time I'll know if I was right on this thread, or if I was wrong. So be it! :wink:

A good evening to all. (I'm off to the Funny Farm, I mean Funny Forum)
 

Skull Mason

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2006
Posts
3,035
Media
6
Likes
110
Points
193
Location
Dirty Jersey
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
"There may be a case that male circumcision reduces HIV risk in sexually active adults"

fuck it lets outlaw condoms too!

Anyway, with all due respect my lovely venice beach milf, I'm not sure you have been around long enough to see what these cut vs uncut threads escalate into. Slowly but surely all the circumcision nazis will come out the woodwork and it turns into a war. All the uncut people hate on the cut people, whereas us cut folk don't really seem to give a shit and are quite happy with our beautiful, streamlined, [clean], cocks.
 

joejack

Cherished Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Posts
727
Media
727
Likes
327
Points
283
Location
Florida
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
:mad::mad::mad:Yes, circumcision is a barbarous custom that must be outlawed in all nations that respect the rights of man!:mad::mad::mad:
 

B_cigarbabe

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Posts
3,872
Media
0
Likes
24
Points
183
Location
Boston,Mass.
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Why in the world, would any male want to have his cock cut,as an adult?
I know a man who did and it was horribly painful for him.
When he noticed it was slightly less in length,he was upset.
Do it when they're an infant, I haven't seen any evidence of long term damage,to the childs mind,body,presented credibly by either side.
How can you miss,something you never had?
cigarbabe:saevil:
 

chico8

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2006
Posts
727
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
163
Location
Chico
Sexuality
No Response
It's encouraging to hear that the BMJ has taken up the issue. Back when female circ became the issue du jour, I knew it was only a matter of time before the lack of legal protection concerning infant male genital integrity became an issue.

There's been a fairly broad popular movement to ban RIC and a few legal efforts in the US, but until the medical establishment gets behind the issue, baby boys will continue to be mutilated for the sake of archaic ways of thinking.

It's been well established in the US that legal protection for one gender must be applied to both genders. I'm very happy that baby girls are no longer neutered by the knife, let's hope it's not much longer before boys are granted the same protections.
 

B_johnschlong

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
653
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
163
Gender
Male
Why in the world, would any male want to have his cock cut,as an adult?
I know a man who did and it was horribly painful for him.
When he noticed it was slightly less in length,he was upset.
Do it when they're an infant, I haven't seen any evidence of long term damage,to the childs mind,body,presented credibly by either side.
How can you miss,something you never had?
cigarbabe:saevil:

Exactly, cigarbabe. If you let an adult man the free choice, he will decide not to have his cock mutilated - all the reasons the ritual cutters will present to him will be rejected as bogus nonsense.

There are no good reasons for circumcision, except ritual ones, and these are very powerful.

If a community decides to exert its collective power over the individual by carving identity in that individual in the most primitive way (the literal incision in the flesh), then so be it. But rational people have the right to debate the use of such primitive practises in our day and age.

There are other techniques with which communities can mark individuals into a common identity. Destroying ones' genitals is a bit radical and an outdated technique, just my two cents.
 

jafar

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Posts
264
Media
0
Likes
209
Points
263
Location
Ottawa (Ontario, Canada)
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
There are lots of scientific reasons why circumcision is necessary. Phimosis, frenulum baeve, paraphimosis, recurrent infections, etc., the list goes on. Have you ever experienced any foreskin problem, or you have never had a foreskin at all?

Exactly, cigarbabe. If you let an adult man the free choice, he will decide not to have his cock mutilated - all the reasons the ritual cutters will present to him will be rejected as bogus nonsense.

There are no good reasons for circumcision, except ritual ones, and these are very powerful.

If a community decides to exert its collective power over the individual by carving identity in that individual in the most primitive way (the literal incision in the flesh), then so be it. But rational people have the right to debate the use of such primitive practises in our day and age.

There are other techniques with which communities can mark individuals into a common identity. Destroying ones' genitals is a bit radical and an outdated technique, just my two cents.
 

jafar

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Posts
264
Media
0
Likes
209
Points
263
Location
Ottawa (Ontario, Canada)
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
There is broad popular movement at all. It is a just a very vocal minority that distorts scientific facts and resorts to lying about the "harms" of circumcision. Circumcision is becoming more popular around the world than ever. In countries where RIC is not performed, up to 20 - 30% of young men need to or choose to be circumcised in late teenage years or early adulthood as they become sexually active (e.g. China, Korea). Other countries are promoting circumcision as a prophylactic measure against HIV infection, e.g. Africa.

There's been a fairly broad popular movement to ban RIC and a few legal efforts in the US, but until the medical establishment gets behind the issue, baby boys will continue to be mutilated for the sake of archaic ways of thinking.