Why are people so angry about circumcision

[D_Fergus_Fearsomegas]

both are so horrible and senseless acts of cutting a child






I WANT MY FORESKIN BACK

 

[gymfresh]

Female "circumcision" involves removal of the clitoris to reduce sexual excitement/sensation; male circumcision involves removal of a foreskin very rich in nerve-supply - forever.

The most common forms of female circumcision do not remove the clitoris.
That's hyperbole that the West has adopted to make it seem unimaginable and to justify distinguishing it from infant or childhood male circumcision. The most typical form of involuntary female genital cutting slices or removes the prepuce of the clitoris.

In any event, you are correct that this is homologous tissue in males and females. If males have too much specialized skin down there, then females have too much specialized skin down there. If it's illegal to cut one gender's sex organs without a medical diagnosis, then it follows that it should be illegal for both genders. To believe otherwise is to either hold the genders to have different value (as some religions do) or to believe that the penis has evolved improperly and can universally be improved surgically. That's a big claim to defend, and no medical association has gone there - and never will.

 

[SirConcis]

conor, male circumcision in north america generally leaves much of the inner foreksin and removes mostly shaft skin. In europe, circumcision is rarely done at borth and allows use of techniques which remove the innerofrekisn with scar right at the glans. So european circumcisions remove more sesnitive tissue than north american ones.

There is no question that when parents made the choice to circumcise their son, it is a one way street. However, there are many "one way" streets parents make about their children and they take those decisions because they feel it is better for their child.

As long as thei are honest with why they are taking that decision and know they will have no problem explaining it to their child later, I feel it is their right. It is really a very simple procedure, not such a big deal as the anti circers would want us to believe.

 

[conor]

conor, male circumcision in north america generally leaves much of the inner foreksin and removes mostly shaft skin. In europe, circumcision is rarely done at borth and allows use of techniques which remove the innerofrekisn with scar right at the glans. So european circumcisions remove more sesnitive tissue than north american ones.

There is no question that when parents made the choice to circumcise their son, it is a one way street. However, there are many "one way" streets parents make about their children and they take those decisions because they feel it is better for their child.

As long as thei are honest with why they are taking that decision and know they will have no problem explaining it to their child later, I feel it is their right. It is really a very simple procedure, not such a big deal as the anti circers would want us to believe.

I am well familiar with the techniques of circumcision, as I am a doctor. You are wrong; it IS a big deal - have you ever heard a baby scream when circumcised under local anaesthetic? It should never be a parent's choice to remove any HEALTHY, natural body part of any child. The bottom line is that there is irreversible loss of nerve-endings, and the glans and exposed inner foreskin become less sensitive - how is that ever in the best interest of the child?

 

[Hoss]

I am well familiar with the techniques of circumcision, as I am a doctor. You are wrong; it IS a big deal - have you ever heard a baby scream when circumcised under local anaesthetic? It should never be a parent's choice to remove any HEALTHY, natural body part of any child. The bottom line is that there is irreversible loss of nerve-endings, and the glans and exposed inner foreskin become less sensitive - how is that ever in the best interest of the child?

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

Fact is parents make decisions many of which the person who they are made for will later be less than satisfied with. Some people look for a major resentment reason so they can then disparage their parent(s) for the rest of all time. Is it really worth expending all the energy needed towards such hatred? Spend the time and energy on educating the uninformed and move on with life.

Regarding babies, they cry. Almost if not all babies cry. Babies cry at that early age when they are in the arms of a stranger. They begin wailing long before the circumcision even begins.

 

[deleted15807]

...have you ever heard a baby scream when circumcised under local anaesthetic? It should never be a parent's choice to remove any HEALTHY, natural body part of any child. The bottom line is that there is irreversible loss of nerve-endings, and the glans and exposed inner foreskin become less sensitive - how is that ever in the best interest of the child?

Yeah that's pretty much a lie:

The American Academy of Family Physicians No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction.
​

And yes I've heard babies scream bloody murder....on airplanes. I doubt there's much of a difference.

 

[conor]

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

So why not lop off a finger or a toe too - that won't kill. Will that make them stronger?

 

[conor]

Yeah that's pretty much a lie:

The American Academy of Family Physicians No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction.
​

And yes I've heard babies scream bloody murder....on airplanes. I doubt there's much of a difference.

Your "source" has no knowledge of Histology or basic Anatomy in that case - can it explain how the permanent loss of thousands of nerve-endings, and increased keratinisation of the now-exposed glans do not affect sensation....?

 

[gymfresh]

The American Academy of Family Physicians No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction.

Hmmm, yeah, the fact that they chose to ignore published, peer-reviewed studies means what? It will be very telling if the AAFP chooses to ignore the new Belgian study that says exactly that.

It's not by accident that almost all the studies that purport to show no difference in sexual sensation or satisfaction completely ignore the foreskin, and only look at skin that both circumcised and intact men have in common. I'm sure you think that's reasonable; I think it's dishonest and moronic.

As for health benefits, the current AAP statement is pretty clear:

A meta-analysis with good evidence of data from 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT) and 6 longitudinal analyses found little evidence that male circumcision directly reduces their female partner’s risk of acquiring HIV (summary relative risk: 0.8 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.53–1.36]); male circumcision’s protective effect did not reach a level of statistical significance. One Ugandan RCT study with good evidence found that, at 24 months, the risk of HIV infection among women whose male partners were circumcised was 21.7% compared with 13.4% for female partners of uncircumcised men. (p. 11)​

and

In men with an intact prepuce and no phimosis, there is a decreased risk of invasive penile cancer (OR: 0.5). When excluding phimosis, the risk disappears. (p. 14)​

Though this is also a document that refers to the natural male state as "a lack of circumcision." What the hell? Could the bias be any clearer?

It's now obvious that the AAP's conclusions are going to get trounced in the next round of international medical association pronouncements on circumcision. Doctors' groups in non-circumcising countries have had just about enough of the AAP's mounting assaults on intact boys and men. For a while it was reasonable to just ignore the AAP as adrift and harmless; now it's wandered into crazy land and skirts scientific misrepresentation and fraud.

 

[SirConcis]

You know, my inner foreskin is more sensitive as a circumcised male than it was when I was fully uncut. That is because as a circumcised male the inner foreksin gets far mroe direct stimulation and stretching then it did as a long foreskinned uncut where inner foreksin would spemd most of its time against head, and never pulled down tight.

 

[gymfresh]

Doesn't change the fact that a fair amount of penis tissue is gone, and the nerve pathways for that tissue have been short-circuited. Remember, on the penis the nerves pathways do not run north-south, they run east-west -- the only part of the body where this is the case. Cutting out a section of the sleeve means that the ends can't connect.
What's left may feel fine. But the fact is, that it's far more variable in circumcised men than in intact men.

 

[JTalbain]

mallak, you forget that in most cases, it is the mother that requests the circumcision. If american women didn't prefer cut dicks, they wouldn't have asked for their sons to be done.

And yet I've seen many other sources say the exact opposite. Do you have any justification for this logical leap? The assumption that women are the primary requestors of circumcision for their sons, and they do so because it matches their own sexual/aesthetic preferences?

The two procedures are not the same. Period.

Ah Sargon, trying to lecture the surgeon on the effects of surgery? :wink:

You know, my inner foreskin is more sensitive as a circumcised male than it was when I was fully uncut. That is because as a circumcised male the inner foreksin gets far mroe direct stimulation and stretching then it did as a long foreskinned uncut where inner foreksin would spemd most of its time against head, and never pulled down tight.

Do you mean "is more sensitive" or "gets stimulated more often"? There is a difference. And on that note, your mucocutaneous junction and frenulum were more sensitive anyway.

 

[farmdog]

Since my comment about screaming done by infant boys during circumcision seems to have generated debate as to there being no difference between babies crying/screaming on planes, and boys being circumcized, there is a TREMENDOUS difference. I worked as an EMT in the field and in a hospital, and I have spent countless hours on planes. The scream of an infant boy enduring the cutting off of his foreskin is spin-chillng. Anyone who is an EMS responder or works in and ER knows the difference between an annoying screaming fussy child on a plane, and the TERRIFYING scream of an infant seriously injured. The later is the scream of a boy having his foreskin cut.
As to the comments about this issue being fodder for a general resentment of one's parents. I loved my mother, now deceased, and my dad very much, but they were following the recommendation of Dr. Spock. He retracted his recommendation for routine infant circumcision later in his life. Both my parents now regret the decision, so I resent the medical community that at that time that created the myth that the foreskin lead to poor hygiene, not my parents. However, in today's day and age where there is so much information that suggests circumcision is an unncessary procedure, an informed and caring parent should never routinely circumcize their infant boy. Let him decide when he is 18.
As far as the current AAFP position, it is totally absurd. As Dr. "Gymfresh" wrote, the bias is blatant, especially when stating that the natural male penis is circumcized.

So in reply to SirConcis, if you are happy with having made the decision to get circumcised as an adult, that was your choice and I have to respect it. But let's allow our sons make the choice as an adult.

 

[gymfresh]

I agree with your post. I must point out that I'm not a medical doctor, though conor has indicated that he is. My only "doctor" degree is Juris Doctor.

 

[farmdog]

I moved on from EMT to got a J.D. too. You are correct, it is Dr. Conor who is the MD.

 

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

I was hopeful for this thread initially but it seems to have turned into what every thread turns into when its controversial.

...

I'm cut and I'm glad I am. I plan on circumcising my boys when I have them.

I'm not sure what your argument here is.

1. Circumcision has been done in the U.S. for a while, and most people don't find it immoral.

2. Some parents raise their kids to be bigots or deny them medical care when they need it, and circumcision isn't as bad as those things.

3. You like being circumcised.

That doesn't add up to making it logical to circumcise your kid at infancy. It basically just says "it's legal, and there are worse things in the world." No kidding. I think we can both agree that "it could be worse" is not a good reason to take a choice from a kid. So what is your reason here -- that you didn't mind it? Circumcision preference, yet again, isn't genetic; it's individual. If it were genetic, you wouldn't have a thread full of guys wishing they'd been giving that choice. Why, then, should he not have that choice?

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

Hoss, I've seen the studies on what acute systemic shock does to a person's body, and this aphorism is untrue. Actually, what doesn't kill us tends to bring us (however marginally) closer to death. All else being equal, it's much preferable to not subject newborns to pain. I really don't think there's a good evidence-based argument otherwise.

Fact is parents make decisions many of which the person who they are made for will later be less than satisfied with. Some people look for a major resentment reason so they can then disparage their parent(s) for the rest of all time. Is it really worth expending all the energy needed towards such hatred? Spend the time and energy on educating the uninformed and move on with life.

I think that, on average, people who openly care about issues not in the complete cultural mainstream are probably always, on average, crazier than the rest of the population. I bet if you looked at early supporters of things like women's rights, racial equality, eliminating harsh corporal punishment of children, LGBT rights, etc., a lot of them would probably be pretty whack and hung-up. That's concerning, but I think the best way is to approach them about it privately, and leave that separate from the ethical debate on the issue.

(Sargon obviously disagrees; apparently I'm going to have to fax him my psychological record before he actually replies to my posts. I'm sure he'll find some way to turn childhood ADHD and periodic insomnia into disqualifying factors )

 

[mallak]

Since my comment about screaming done by infant boys during circumcision seems to have generated debate as to there being no difference between babies crying/screaming on planes, and boys being circumcized, there is a TREMENDOUS difference. I worked as an EMT in the field and in a hospital, and I have spent countless hours on planes. The scream of an infant boy enduring the cutting off of his foreskin is spin-chillng. Anyone who is an EMS responder or works in and ER knows the difference between an annoying screaming fussy child on a plane, and the TERRIFYING scream of an infant seriously injured. The later is the scream of a boy having his foreskin cut..

I fail to see how such intense pain being inflicted on so many men in their first moments of life can bring about much good in the world. There must be some overall metasociopsychological effects from this. I'm not saying cut men are more violent or uncut more peaceful, or any broad generalizations, but still, it can't be good. If you want to get cut as an adult good for you, but let's leave the babies out of this.

 

[Astro]

All the pro-circumcision arguments have progressively been shown as bunk. This BBC article puts it far more effectively than I can.

Now I understand the physical damage that was inflicted on me (for supposed religious reasons), I am livid that those who were supposed to protect me did that to me. I still ask why it was not left for me to decide to have parts of my body surgically excised! It appals me- i will never forgive both my parents for such destructive interference in my private parts!

It just amazes me that the worlds most advanced nation swallows this practice for:
Religious mumbo-jumbo (for goodness sake why does religion come into it?)
The US medical establishment pretending its beneficial and keeping a good money-earner
So Sonny looks like Pop!
So Sonny won't be odd one out!
Because American women are supposed to 'prefer' it?

It's absolutely unbelievable! If only the law had protected me from this mutilation and my glans being deadened of sensation like this! How can you pretend that sensation has not been destroyed when it loses feeling? Stop it now!

 

[B_david100]

I agree with above statement but I do not know why people getting angry . I personally do not care of this.

 

[Astro]

I'm angry because the circumcision has had side effects. The glans is supposed to be pleasurably sensually sensitive. Because its protection has been removed, it has become dry and the skin has become desensitised. How can anybody say it has not reduced the pleasure? Those who have been circumcised as adults appear to still feel sensitive there- wait a few years for the nerves to deaden and the skin to dry and change form. I was cut long ago- it wasn't until this forum that I understood the bad effects and wonder what stupid justification my parents had for such a savage procedure on their child- for what supposed benefit?

I think future generations will castigate their parents for following religion and this American dogma for forcing this dreadful practice on them. It's so sad so many people are so obstinate as to wish this curse on their poor children by choice. I think it makes them unfit, abusive parents. LEAVE YOUR CHILDRENS PENISES UNMUTILATED!