Un-Circumcising ?

[LBJ]

I am uncut and thank the Lord for being that way! It's kind of like having gloves on. If you wear gloves everyday of your life, then you hands become more sensitive when the gloves are removed! Same way with your penise! If it rubs on your jeans all day bare from being cicumsized then it tuffin's up. If it has it's (glove on) then it is very sensitive and therefore you get more feeling out of it when it is skinned back. But you do have to work at keeping clean a little harder but worth every minute of it!

[BearEater]

I am also uncut and I find LBJ's comment so true. It is extremely sensitive to the point where some contact is actually like being tickled. I don't know if this is good or bad, or if it is more sensitive than others or not. I have no problem keeping clean. It's a few more seconds in the shower and I love hot water anyway.

The only thing I have ever considered having done is the removal of the frenulum which constantly pulls the skin forward over the head of the penis. Sometimes it becomes a problem when the skin rolls forward again and the sensitivity drops all of a sudden, but of course this is under very specific conditions which are probably more suited to another forum. Still, I'm just relaying my experience.

I have not read all of the posts, but from a couple above Keith mentions that being circumsized has its disadvantages. Well, since I am not, what would others who are cut feel that they are, if any?

[AlaskaRoy]

Hi BearEater,
I'd encourage you to think twice before having your frenulum removed. Here's an experiment: stroke your frenulum and pay attention to the sensations. For most men, they are among the most sensitive nerves in the entire genital area. Now, imagine never being able to have those feelings again.
For many circumcised men (myself included), there may be a small corner of the frenulum that survived the mutilation. I'm glad I at least have this one, 2x2 milimeter patch left.
By they way, I've been working on foreskin restoration now for almost three years. I have partial coverage often, but still have quite a ways to go.
Roy

[True Brit]

Circumcised and proud to say! I thank my parents for that.

Looks better, cleaner more healthier. Girls in the UK seem to prefer it too, No hidden surprises everything in the open.

Yes it can look smaller but as for sensitivity single guys should be wearing protection anyway.
Who cares about a few centimetres of skin, All that matters about my body is that I have good health.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by True Brit:
Circumcised and proud to say! I thank my parents for that.

Looks better, cleaner more healthier. Girls in the UK seem to prefer it too, No hidden surprises everything in the open.

Yes it can look smaller but as for sensitivity single guys should be wearing protection anyway.
Who cares about a few centimetres of skin, All that matters about my body is that I have good health.

Yes, it's all a big furore over nothing really. I just can't get worked up about this issue. I agree women prefer cut to uncut.

[Hooked]

Originally posted by True Brit:
Circumcised and proud to say!

Why does that make you proud?

[P.J.]

I'm also glad that I'm circumcized. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I'm even more glad that this procedure was done before I knew what was happening! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
As for reversing my circumcision, I can summarize my thought on this matter with just one word: why? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
A doctor's gloved hand when it's time for a check-up is more than enough for me. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
A scalpel or anything sharp down there, especially when it's not neccesary is quite another matter!!! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by Hooked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by True Brit:
Circumcised and proud to say!

Why does that make you proud? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thought you were a cultural relativist. He's proud of his 'way', his 'tradition' like like the chinese are proud of eating with chopsticks or flying paper kites.

[BearEater]

Originally posted by AlaskaRoy:
Hi BearEater,
I'd encourage you to think twice before having your frenulum removed. Here's an experiment: stroke your frenulum and pay attention to the sensations. For most men, they are among the most sensitive nerves in the entire genital area. Now, imagine never being able to have those feelings again.
Roy

Well AlaskaRoy, the frenulum is sensitive, true, but for me it is overly so. I don't need to have it removed as much as just have the tension released. I don't think I would want to lose all sensitivity there, but when it is sensitive to the point of discomfort then something should be done.

Good for you if you are restoring and are happy with the results. I think both sides have advantages and disadvantages. One comment I would have to disagree with however is the one which mentions how women prefer cut men. It may just be because it is uncommon where you are. In New York it must not be very common for men to be uncircumcised because most ladies I have dealt with like the difference of an uncut penis. To each his own though.

[John Spooner]

I may as well throw my hat into the arena and say that like True Brit and PJ, I am also very pleased with my cut status (ric Gomco).
The large % of us in Oz are cut.
John S.

[Hooked]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hooked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by True Brit:
Circumcised and proud to say!

Why does that make you proud? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thought you were a cultural relativist. He's proud of his 'way', his 'tradition' like like the chinese are proud of eating with chopsticks or flying paper kites. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was a simple question, Kirk, and not one posed to you. It doesn't prove that I'm not using cultural relativism as you are implying. I'm simply curious and want to know TrueBrit's thoughts, not yours. I couldn't care less about YOUR thoughts, Kirk. Your posts are never thought out well enough for me to want to read them. You're constantly picking fights. Why don't you stop mixing threads and generally being ugly to me? Thanks in advance.

[True Brit]

I wish not to dwell too much on this topic but would add that Norm UK views and web page were most informative on the subject. It is clearly obvious many men are still very much traumatised at their loss, the feeling of being mutalated without consent and very sadly the inner bitterness towards their parents.

For me as a male nudist I am completly at ease at having a cut penis, I bear no grudge or malice towards anyone, the decision was probably based on cultural due to Asian influence within the family. In the UK it is very rare, so I am therefore in the minority, Do I care? No Way!! Females will look and look again, A fellow nudist at the club asked me if the head of my penis would burn in the sun, she was not familiar with the cut penis, I soon put her mind at ease.

Yes I am proud of my heritage and traditions that have evolved down family generations, If I had a son would I have him circumsised! maybe yes or maybe no!! There are so many arguments for and against.
As a straight guy the only penis I know is my own and I am more than content with its appearance and would prefer it in no other way.
I am equally sure there are many Guys who are uncut would in fact like to be cut.

Family Traditions and Heritage is always something to be proud of so here's to Keeping the British End Up!!

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by True Brit:
I wish not to dwell too much on this topic but would add that Norm UK views and web page were most informative on the subject. It is clearly obvious many men are still very much traumatised at their loss, the feeling of being mutalated without consent and very sadly the inner bitterness towards their parents.

!!

Not sure I believed these guys are traumatized or if they claim to be I think there are a lot of deeper issues with their parents at work don't you?

[NudistTraveler]

I was in the strange situation of being 30 years old before knowing if I was circumcised or not. I always looked like everyone else in the locker room. In Junior High, Senior High, and college, I only remember seeing one guy who was noticably not circumcised. His father was a doctor.

At age 30, I and some co-workers were discussing circumcision and I mention that I was not certain if I was or not. A female co-worker offered to look and give me her opinion. I declined.

I asked my mother, and she said I was not circumcised. She said that she and my father felt it was undesirable and unnecessary. Apparently my foreskin is naturally short and only slightly longer than a circumcised foreskin.

My wife is an OB-Gyn and said she uses my length as a guide when doing circ's. She neither encourages nor discourages the procedure. She said it is done about 20% less then before.

Naked Hugs, Carroll

[Hooked]

True Brit,
Thanks for your thoughful response. I'm still unsure of why it's something to actually be proud of but maybe it's something that is just hard to explain. I'm glad you're happy with your penis. I think it only fair to explain here that men who are in the process of un-circumcising are not always "unhappy" with their penises to begin with. The reasons for un-circumcising are vast and numerous and SOME of them can be found on the NORM website.

[Hooked]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Not sure I believed these guys are traumatized or if they claim to be I think there are a lot of deeper issues with their parents at work don't you?

That may be your opinion but that statement is utterly unqualifiable. Why would you doubt that someone is bothered by something if they said they were? Again, many people who choose to un-circumcise hold no malice towards their parents at all for the decision they made but now they get to make the decisions in their own lives.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by Hooked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Not sure I believed these guys are traumatized or if they claim to be I think there are a lot of deeper issues with their parents at work don't you?

That may be your opinion but that statement is utterly unqualifiable. Why would you doubt that someone is bothered by something if they said they were? Again, many people who choose to un-circumcise hold no malice towards their parents at all for the decision they made but now they get to make the decisions in their own lives. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We live in a victim culture where people make an industry of claiming they are the victims of all sorts of things: the fashion industry, the cosmetic industry are just some of the looniest we hear of. The first guy to claim he was victimized by circumcison started up maybe 5 years ago. Prior to that such a thing was unheard of and many laugh at such a claim. You have to admit it is a bit ridiculous. Either the fellow is disturbed or putting us on.

[Hooked]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:

We live in a victim culture where people make an industry of claiming they are the victims of all sorts of things: the fashion industry, the cosmetic industry are just some of the looniest we hear of. The first guy to claim he was victimized by circumcison started up maybe 5 years ago. Prior to that such a thing was unheard of and many laugh at such a claim. You have to admit it is a bit ridiculous. Either the fellow is disturbed or putting us on.

Nope. Un-circumcising has been around for nearly 2 decades AT LEAST. Also, no I do not have to admit anything in your claim. Either he's (whoever "he" is) disturbed or putting us on, eh? Is that your expert opinion, Doctor?

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by Hooked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:

We live in a victim culture where people make an industry of claiming they are the victims of all sorts of things: the fashion industry, the cosmetic industry are just some of the looniest we hear of. The first guy to claim he was victimized by circumcison started up maybe 5 years ago. Prior to that such a thing was unheard of and many laugh at such a claim. You have to admit it is a bit ridiculous. Either the fellow is disturbed or putting us on.

Nope. Un-circumcising has been around for nearly 2 decades AT LEAST. Also, no I do not have to admit anything in your claim. Either he's (whoever "he" is) disturbed or putting us on, eh? Is that your expert opinion, Doctor? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not talking about uncircumcising just this kooky claim to have been victimized as a result.

[Hooked]

ok, well you should have said that to begin with. Traumatized and Victimized are two different things.

A person can be traumatized by accidentally driving their car into a telephone pole. No one has been victimized in this case.

Whether you consider routine infant circumcision a victimizing practice or not is an arguement that people are not going to see eye to eye on for some time as these pages and pages on this topic would certainly suggest. Some people feel it is an unfair practice inflicted upon a child against the child's will before the child is old enough to give consent and others feel the child shouldn't have any rights concerning circumcision, that the parents should be allowed to reomve perfectly healthy tissue from their infants for no apparent medical reason. Until logic washes out the latter socially conditioned reasoning, people will never agree on this.

[Snoboy]

For goodness sakes...you guy's need to update your matieral...better yet, cut the topic instead of the penis.

[Trailscout]

Our parents should not be treated too harshly. They acted on the best medical advise of the day. There were also a lot of pre-emptive tonsillectomies going on as well. Some parents had us circumcised so that we would not be ridiculed by our schoolmates. Circumcision rates were near 100 percent in those days.

[NakedGary]

[Post transfered from a duplicate Topic/Title that has been closed, by the Form Moderator.]

azgreen
New Member

Location: Arizona
Registered:: April 12, 2005
Posts: 5 posted April 24, 2005 09:27 PM

It is a reasonable topic. First, as a naturist who was once hung out to dry (circumcised) by not having a foreskin, then fully restoring myself for full coverage through skin stretching or "uncircumcising," I do, indeed, feel sort of "naked" whenever my foreskin may somehow roll back in the naturist environment. There is a kind of protection about having the glans covered. Needless to say, the glans can and does sunburn if exposed -- whether it's an uncircumcised man or a penis that has gone through uncircumcision and is otherwise covered. My tip has peaked out when the sun is low and been burned. The other noticeable thing is that when the foreskin is rolled back, there is a contrasting white skin/tanned skin "neopolitan" look that quickly points out that the guy has a foreskin and it has rolled back. Bottom line is that a foreskin protects, and the glans, sulcus and frenulum are all more sensitive and "alive" because they are ordinarily covered and not dulled and calloused by clothing and bedsheets.

.

[T.L. L.A.]

Say it and Say it loud! I'm Circumsized and I'm proud! God Bless Us All.

[John Spooner]

Say it and Say it loud! I'm Circumsized and I'm proud! God Bless Us All.

Same here exactly!!
In Christ.
John S.

[younghippy]

I have never regretted my circumsized penis. I couldn't imagine it any other way.

I'm happy with the decision that was made for me. The pain and suffering argument is weak, too. I don't quite recall all the "un-needed" pain, as I was barely a week old. Memory stil hazy from those wild and crazy days, ya know...

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by younghippy:
I have never regretted my circumsized penis. I couldn't imagine it any other way.

I'm happy with the decision that was made for me. The pain and suffering argument is weak, too. I don't quite recall all the "un-needed" pain, as I was barely a week old. Memory stil hazy from those wild and crazy days, ya know...

Exactly. A lot of flap -excuse the pun--about nothing.

[vintagecarguy]

a woman who has reconstructive surgery for a breast removed due to cancer is not crazy.A man or woman who has an ear reconstructed after loosing it in an accident is just trying to repair damage.
A man going through foreskin restoration is just trying to fix a little of the damage done by infant genital mutilation.
Those who consider that man insane or ridicule men who feel damaged by the proceedure[circumcision] are somehow threatened by the whole concept.
how very sad.

[Tara]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by younghippy:
I have never regretted my circumsized penis. I couldn't imagine it any other way.

I'm happy with the decision that was made for me. The pain and suffering argument is weak, too. I don't quite recall all the "un-needed" pain, as I was barely a week old. Memory stil hazy from those wild and crazy days, ya know...

Exactly. A lot of flap -excuse the pun--about nothing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I find it amazing that people will say it's a lot of flap about nothing, when it relates to infant boys. Yet it removes a natural, pleasurable (in later life) part of their anatomy. When they do this at a female circumcision it is seen as inhumane. One is "circumcision" while the other is "mutilation." Why the difference for males and females???

It seems to me they are both worthy of equal "flap."

Frankly, if my clitoris had been removed without my having a say in the matter, I would feel victimized.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by Tara:
I find it amazing that people will say it's a lot of flap about nothing, when it relates to infant boys. Yet it removes a natural, pleasurable (in later life) part of their anatomy. When they do this at a female circumcision it is seen as inhumane. One is "circumcision" while the other is "mutilation." Why the difference for males and females???

It seems to me they are both worthy of equal "flap."

Frankly, if my clitoris had been removed without my having a say in the matter, I would feel victimized.

False analogy. Removal of the clitoris is not the equivalent of a circumcision.

[nudeatheart]

I have to go along with several of the other men who have posted. I was circumcised as an infant and do not remember the procedure. I have never "missed" my foreskin. I have no interest in growing it back. I am glad it was done early in life. I know of several men who have, for health reasons, had to have it done as adults. For them the procedure was unpleasant and is one they do remember.

[John Spooner]

have never regretted my circumsized penis. I couldn't imagine it any other way.

I'm happy with the decision that was made for me. The pain and suffering argument is weak, too. I don't quite recall all the "un-needed" pain, as I was barely a week old. Memory stil hazy from those wild and crazy days, ya know...

Dear Younghippy.
Exactly what I say also, with you all the way.
That makes 5 of us in the "pleased to be cut club", so far there are yourself, LA Naked man, Nudeart, Nudeatheart and myself. Anyone else?
Regards. John S.

[younghippy]

John,
I'd hope most men who are cut, feel the saem way. It would be a terrible shame to go through life regretting it. Blaming parents? doctors? whoever... just useless in my opinion.

nudeart, I have had older friends do the same lately. A few guys realized that there were benefits, and therefore went through w/ the procedure in their 30's, no regrets for them either.

Love what you got!

[vintagecarguy]

this was CAUSED by infant circumcision done with the holister plastibel,same device they used to mutilate me.I was lucky,at least I'm just only slightly mangled compared to this poor soul.

[graphic image removed - please provide URL/link to image instead of posting directly in forum thanks]

Originally posted by John Spooner. South Oz.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">have never regretted my circumsized penis. I couldn't imagine it any other way.

I'm happy with the decision that was made for me. The pain and suffering argument is weak, too. I don't quite recall all the "un-needed" pain, as I was barely a week old. Memory stil hazy from those wild and crazy days, ya know...

Dear Younghippy.
Exactly what I say also, with you all the way.
That makes 5 of us in the "pleased to be cut club", so far there are yourself, LA Naked man, Nudeart, Nudeatheart and myself. Anyone else?
Regards. John S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not good enough reason to choose to maim a baby and possibly cause him to lose his penis. All I ask is that each person wait till they are old enough to choose for themselves and not allow parents to cut off valuable body parts.

This is what Galloping Gangrene looks like.

[Warning - possibly graphic image]

http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Images/Botched/fasc1.jpg

Here is an example of cutting too deeply into the urethra.


http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Images/Botched/iatr-hyp.jpg

This could be YOUR son.

My son, Jacob, was born normal and healthy at Providence Hospital in Anchorage Alaska in 1986, he was routinely circumcised on his second day of life. A few days later, we brought Jacob back to the hospital because an infection had developed at the circumcision site. A decision was made by his pediatrician to hospitalize him and administer antibotics. The next morning, he began to have seizures that went untreated. Twenty-six hours after entering the hospital, he stopped breathing during a massive seizure. As a result my son suffered profound brain damage. Today Jacob is almost ten years old, he requires 24 hour a day care as he will for the rest of his life. The cover-up from this circumcision-related tragedy started almost immediately, Jacob's incriminating medical records were "lost". Jacob's nurses do not "remember" him. WE DID NOT EVEN MEET his circumciser before he performed the surgery on our son.

The State (Columbia, South Carolina)
July 10, 1992
Page F21.

Boy In Coma Most of His 6 Years Dies

The Associated Press

Spartanburg, South Carolina

A boy who was in a coma for more than six years while a legal battle raged around him has died. But the legal fighting will continue.

Allen A. Ervin was born in July 1985 and had been on life support since December 1985, when his brain was damaged from oxygen deprivation during circumcision.

He died at Spartanburg Regional Medical Center on Wednesday, three weeks before his 7th birthday. Doctors said he suddenly suffered severe heart problems, his mother, Stacey Stroble, said.

The Anesthesiologists who attended to Allen during the circumcision settled the case for $435,000 and agreed to lifetime payment of his medical bills.

The programme It's a Boy, to be screened on Channel 4 this month, includes graphic footage of a circumcision in the Midlands that went disastrously wrong. The 8-day-old baby, circumcised without anaesthetic by a rabbi who is not a doctor, is seen bloodied and screaming in agony during the operation. When it was clear things were going wrong, the rabbi demanded the crew stop filming, but they secretly recorded what followed. The boy developed an infection and ended up in intensive care being pumped with antibiotics and kept alive by oxygen and drips.

The film -- the work of Victor Schoenfeld, the Jewish father of a circumcised son -- also presents details of 2 babies who died as a result of circ and contains an interview with the mother of a third who almost bled to death. It reveals cases of permanent genital disfigurement, claiming that, at a conservative estimate one in 50 circumcisions leads to serious complications. The impact of the film, which also shows Muslim circumcisions, will be intensified by Ch. 4's decision to show it without commercial breaks. --The Observer, London, 3 Sept 1995 Circ Info Network 951011

One in 50 are the odds that your son will encounter SERIOUS complications. Is it really worth it?

http://www.**************

[younghippy]

Thanks for ridding us of those horrific photos.

No need for shock factor here!



(btw, i find that 1 in 50 stat hard to believe)

[vintagecarguy]

Thanks for ridding us of those horrific photos.

No need for shock factor here!

yes there is a need for shock,everytime someone says circ. is o.k.,or it's never caused harm.
if shock is the only way to get it through the sheeples thick skulls then shock it will be.
here,look at the painfull uncensored truth again.this is the TRUTH about what some folks keep trying to dismiss as just a flap over nothing.look and learn.

{sorry Doug,didn't notice that you were removing the hard truth as too graphic before reposting for the ignorant,I've removed the pic myself.too bad you find giving the facts too graphic,just shows that mutilation is horrible enough that it got censored.}

[PascoDoug]

Originally posted by vintagecarguy:

{sorry Doug,didn't notice that you were removing the hard truth as too graphic before reposting for the ignorant,I've removed the pic myself.too bad you find giving the facts too graphic,just shows that mutilation is horrible enough that it got censored.}

I didn't censor anything - I asked that you provide a clickable link to the image instead of posting it directly into the forum, to allow others to decide whether or not they wish to view it.

I would have added the link myself but since you attached the photo directly into your message, I didn't have an URL available to create the necessary link to the image as I did with the images following your post.

I am anti-circumscision myself but I still have to uphold certain standards here.

[PascoDoug]

Originally posted by younghippy:
Thanks for ridding us of those horrific photos.
No need for shock factor here!
(btw, i find that 1 in 50 stat hard to believe)

I didn't get rid of them.. I provided links so that others could view them if they desired. Those photos do need to be seen but not forced on people. And to those who posted the pics - trust me.. most people will click on the links.. it's human nature.

I don't find the 1 in 50 stat hard to believe at all. Circumscision is surgery and with all surgery things can go wrong! If the surgery were for a life threatening condition 1 in 50 are acceptable odds, but I won't be rolling those dice for a totally unecessary "ritual" if/when when I have a son.

[the NAKED eye]

Seems to me that younghippy has got it about right. I am a roundhead and am very content; another addition to the circumcised happy club
the NAKED eye
Originally posted by younghippy:
Thanks for ridding us of those horrific photos.

No need for shock factor here!



(btw, i find that 1 in 50 stat hard to believe)

[the NAKED eye]

AND a post script: I am pierced and have a Prince Albert ring of 9mm gauge in my circumcised penis as well!
the NAKED eye

Originally posted by the NAKED eye:
Seems to me that younghippy has got it about right. I am a roundhead and am very content; another addition to the circumcised happy club
the NAKED eye
Originally posted by younghippy:
Thanks for ridding us of those horrific photos.

No need for shock factor here!



(btw, i find that 1 in 50 stat hard to believe) [/QUOTE]

[vintagecarguy]

http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched4ga.html

the link goes to pics of infant mutilations results.

heres a DEAD boy.

Dustin Evans Jr was born in Cleveland, Ohio in October 1998. He was circumcised by a Dr Russell soon after, who took so much shaft skin that the scar healed as a wideband stricture (a tight "collar") around his penis, preventing him from urinating. When he was given sevoflourane, an anaesthetic, in order to "revise" his circumcision, he immediately died of cardiopulmonary arrest.

His father said, "You think, 'What could go wrong with a circumcision?' The next thing I know, he's dead."

[Tara]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tara:
I find it amazing that people will say it's a lot of flap about nothing, when it relates to infant boys. Yet it removes a natural, pleasurable (in later life) part of their anatomy. When they do this at a female circumcision it is seen as inhumane. One is "circumcision" while the other is "mutilation." Why the difference for males and females???

It seems to me they are both worthy of equal "flap."

Frankly, if my clitoris had been removed without my having a say in the matter, I would feel victimized.

False analogy. Removal of the clitoris is not the equivalent of a circumcision. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Thanks for the attempted English lesson Kirk, but it is most certainly not a "false analogy."

THEY DESERVE A FAIR COMPARISON AND ARE A FAIR ANALOGY.

First of all, an analogy by definition is a "resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike." Although they are different body parts there are some particulars in common between both procedures...


They are (and I paraphrase):

In a male circumcision the external foreskin is removed (by amputation) from the penis.

In female circumcision (in it's most "popular" form so to speak) either a subtle or distinct portion of the skin surrounding the clitoris is removed. In some cases, part or all of the clitoris is removed (in even more severe cases, removal extends to the labia minor).

Sounds somewhat similar to me, but it doesn't end there...

- Like male circumcision, female circumcision is been documented for thousands of years in individuals from many religions, including Christians, Muslims, and Jews. Some proponents of the practice claim that it is required by the Islamic faith.

- Some medical studies report that penile sensation and sexual satisfaction are decreased for circumcised males. Personal accounts by women who have undergone female circumcision report (among other horrible experiences) lack of sexual pleasure during intercourse.

- The health risks are too technical and too many to list here (you can find them on many sites on the internet), but both male and female circumcision pose serious health risks.

These, Kirk, are just a few of the reasons I find these two procedures to be comparable, not "equivalent," for nothing ever is, but comparable. It is certainly not a "false analogy." Others seem to see them as similar as well... as I've copied and pasted some of my favorite quotes/articles on the topic below:


Shamis Dirir, the Coordinator of the London Black Women’s Health Action Project, interviewed in NOHARMM Health & Human Rights Advocate/July, 1997, stated...

"…(B)oth male and female circumcisions raise the same human rights questions. Our mutual fight is against ignorance. People like us, those who have the pain, are the best fighters, because we know the pain of circumcision. What happened to you, you can’t change it, but you can help to stop it from happening to other children."

More information follows...

People who accept male circumcision as the cultural norm and who are unfamiliar with this debate are sometimes initially surprised when male circumcision is compared to female genital modification (FGM). Can male circumcision be compared to female genital modification? Yes, most definitely male circumcision can and should be compared to female genital modification.

Promoters of male circumcision like to say that there is no comparison between male circumcision and FGM. They point out the differences between male circumcision and the most severe form of FGM, infibulation. They are reluctant to admit that male circumcision is not the only form of male genital modification (MGM) and infibulation is not the only form of FGM.

There are different types of MGM ranging from minor to severe; they include genital piercing, circumcision, subincision, and castration. There are also different types of FGM ranging from minor to severe; they include genital piercing, sunna circumcision, excision, and infibulation.

The different forms of MGM have an analogous form of FGM in terms of damage done to the person whose genitals are being modified. Piercing a boy's penis is analogous to piercing a girl's clitoris or labia. Surgically removing the prepuce of a boy's penis is analogous to surgically removing the prepuce of a girl's clitoris (sunna circumcision). Cutting open the urethra of a boy's penis (subincision) is analogous to cutting off all or part of a girl's clitoris and/or labia minora (excision). And castration is somewhat analogous to infibulation, the most damaging form of FGM, which removes the clitoris and labia and then sews the sides of the vulva together leaving only a small opening.

No national medical organization anywhere on the planet now recommends any form of genital modification for children, not even male circumcision. There is no medical indication for any surgical modification of a child's genitals unless there is a medical condition present that has not responded to less invasive treatments.

Should parents be allowed to pierce their son's penis or their daughter's labia? If it is unethical for a parent to pierce their child's genitals, why is it ethical for a parent to ask a doctor surgically remove a normal, healthy, functional part of their son's penis?

[KirkOntario]

The equivalent of removing a clitoris would be removal of the entire penis. That is why it is a false analogy.

[vintagecarguy]

The equivalent of removing a clitoris would be removal of the entire penis. That is why it is a false analogy.

Buzz!!!wrong answer,so sorry,thanks for playing,but I'm afraid there is no consolation prize.

the equivilant would be removal of the glans,yes,glans,not entire penis,and by the way,a neighbor of mine lost his glans to infant circ.What a wonderful benefit,no funny looking mushroom,thanks docs!

[azgreen]

So you beleive that the parent has the right to "grow" there baby anyway they see fit really? So if they grow there children to teach them to murder people, incourgae them to rape or any other evil thing in this world that a evil parent could do. So would those above situations be ok with you? After all your all for letting the parent grow there kid the way they see fit, you made no exceptions so i would presume you would be ok with sick things like that just as long as the parents are doing it there way.
------------------
Good response. That tired old observation that parents should have the whole decision-making authority for their children is patently false on the face ot it. There are LIMITS, folks. Some of you say amputating part of the penis is OK and some of us say that is going way too far. Enlightened societies, especially in Europe, are aghast at circumcision and see it as primitive, barbaric and wrong. Many of us in the U.S. agree. But to say parents should be able to do whatever they want with their children is simply absurd.

[jon71]

Kirk is right. A clitorectomy is deliberate mutilation intended to destroy a woman's sexuality. It routinely causes sexual dysfunction, sterility, and even death (bleeding to death or from infection). Agree or disagree with male circumcision as you will but they aren't the same thing.

[Tara]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
The equivalent of removing a clitoris would be removal of the entire penis. That is why it is a false analogy.

Are you serious??? Are you familiar with the clitoris? From your statement I seriously doubt it. I suggest you consult an anatomy book Kirk, because I assure you that removing a clitoris (or part of it) is no where near the same as removing the entire penis.

[Tara]

Originally posted by jon71:
Kirk is right. A clitorectomy is deliberate mutilation intended to destroy a woman's sexuality. It routinely causes sexual dysfunction, sterility, and even death (bleeding to death or from infection). Agree or disagree with male circumcision as you will but they aren't the same thing.

Jon, I never said they were the same thing, I pointed out they were not equivalent. For the reasons I explained above (and more) I feel they deserve to be addressed together as they do have similarities. As I touched on above, female circ has deep cultural and religious roots in many areas of the world, just like male circumcision does - I think it is unfair to say that is always done to destory a woman's sexuality. Rather I think it often is done because of ignorance and an accepted norm. We can agree to disagree on whether one is as bad as the other.

[Trailscout]

The circumcised male loses no erectile tissue.

Loss of the clitoris would be more sexually devastating, but vaginal orgasm would still be possible. The urethra does not pass through the clitoris, so removal of it should not affect urethral function in a female.

A man without a penis would lack orgasmal ability. He would also lose several inches of his urethra and would thus likely have urinary incontinence problems.

I know! Why don't we leave both boys and girls intact and quit worrying about who stands to lose the most?

[jon71]

You make some points Tara but in my mind Clitorectomy is unspeakably hideous while male circumcision is more of a matter of taste. I'm circumcised and am healthy and happy. I know worldwide there are plenty of males who are uncircumcised who are happy that way. I doubt you would find any informed woman (who could speak freely) who would be glad they were mutilated like that.

[Tara]

Originally posted by jon71:
I doubt you would find any informed woman (who could speak freely) who would be glad they were mutilated like that.

Jon, I would have guessed the same, until I took a class in college called African and Caribbean Women's Literature. One novel contained stories of female circumcision. It was so indoctrinated in this woman's culture and society she did not even question that it had to be done. In her case, the ritual was performed by her future mother-in-law so she would be "able" to get pregnant. It was also how she "became a woman." She spoke of the horrible pain. Then after healing she spoke of how beautiful and special she felt, dressed up in a ceremonial outfit, adorned with special make-up and walked through town so everyone could see she was now a woman.

This story obviously was shocking to me, but in no way did I find her unintelligent or unable to speak freely (she did not seem repressed). I think she was simply doing what her mother did, and what everyone in her culture saw as perfectly ok. She expressed no regret at having been mutilated, for she knew no other way.

If you would like the name of the book PM me and I'll hunt through my old college boxes for you, it was really fascinating.

[jon71]

I'll take your word for it but man is that sad.

[Hooked]

Do you guys actually READ Tara's clarification? The problem here is terminology because people often use "female circumcision" incorrectly when talking about clitorectomy. here are some working definitions:

female circumcision= removal or labia, skin, etc around female genitalia, espcially NEAR the clit

clitorectomy= removal of clitoris

Now, using these definitions, I do not think you will find that female circumcision is illegal in this country as many Pakistani communities here in the USA (There is one in Austin that I know of) that still circumcise (NOT CLITORECTOMIZE) their female children. This does not cease sexual pleasure, function, etc just as in the case of males although it's arguable that it can DECREASE sexuality, which is likely one of the reasons it is done. All the same risks involved here with infection, etc as with males. Paki-Americans who put their children through this will also site hygenic purposes, which is just as bunk for girls as it is for boys.

So, please let's get off the whole "FGC is not the same as MGC" thing because they are quite similar. MGC is NOT comparable to clitorectomy but I don't think anyone was saying otherwise to begin with.

I dunno why I even bother, if you all didn't read Tara's post, what makes me think you'll bother reading mine...cheers

[Hooked]

Originally posted by Trailscout:
I know! Why don't we leave both boys and girls intact and quit worrying about who stands to lose the most?

That works for me!

[gormenghast20]

Yes, the clit removal in Africa is supposedly to remove the woman's enjoyment of sex so as to make her less likely to be promiscuous. Male circumcision is done, also supposedly, for hygienic purposes. So, I don't feel that you can compare the two...one is done from a hateful standpoint while the other (although it may be misguided) is not.

Benton

[Hooked]

Originally posted by gormenghast20:
Yes, the clit removal in Africa is supposedly to remove the woman's enjoyment of sex so as to make her less likely to be promiscuous. Male circumcision is done, also supposedly, for hygienic purposes. So, I don't feel that you can compare the two...one is done from a hateful standpoint while the other (although it may be misguided) is not.

Benton

Hi and welcome to the forums. I do take exception with your statement because in some cultures and in some peoples' minds within "our" culture (puritanicals), parents do consent to male circumcision with the idea/knowledge that at least some sexuality will be destroyed in the process. Some say hygein and some to rid the male of some sexual desire (free him from tempation of sin, etc) It may sound crazy but I'm convinced it's true. My conclusions at least, take it or leave it.

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by Hooked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:
Yes, the clit removal in Africa is supposedly to remove the woman's enjoyment of sex so as to make her less likely to be promiscuous. Male circumcision is done, also supposedly, for hygienic purposes. So, I don't feel that you can compare the two...one is done from a hateful standpoint while the other (although it may be misguided) is not.

Benton

Hi and welcome to the forums. I do take exception with your statement because in some cultures and in some peoples' minds within "our" culture (puritanicals), parents do consent to male circumcision with the idea/knowledge that at least some sexuality will be destroyed in the process. Some say hygein and some to rid the male of some sexual desire (free him from tempation of sin, etc) It may sound crazy but I'm convinced it's true. My conclusions at least, take it or leave it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never heard this position before...if the male is rid of sexual desire how will the human race continue?

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by gormenghast20:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hooked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:
Yes, the clit removal in Africa is supposedly to remove the woman's enjoyment of sex so as to make her less likely to be promiscuous. Male circumcision is done, also supposedly, for hygienic purposes. So, I don't feel that you can compare the two...one is done from a hateful standpoint while the other (although it may be misguided) is not.

Benton

Hi and welcome to the forums. I do take exception with your statement because in some cultures and in some peoples' minds within "our" culture (puritanicals), parents do consent to male circumcision with the idea/knowledge that at least some sexuality will be destroyed in the process. Some say hygein and some to rid the male of some sexual desire (free him from tempation of sin, etc) It may sound crazy but I'm convinced it's true. My conclusions at least, take it or leave it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never heard this position before...if the male is rid of sexual desire how will the human race continue? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh...thanks for the welcome! Sorry I didn't include that in my earlier post.

[Hooked]

you're welcome. As to being rid of desire and continuation of the human race goes, I never said their position made sense. I imagine some mothers want their sons to become priests or some parents wish to decrease pleasure so desire will not rule the person's life but not decrease it to the point of not having any at all, etc. This is seen in a couple of cultures and sub-cultures. Don't get me wrong, I know it's absurd but no one ever said being human made a whole lot of sense.

[Polarbear1]

Some thoughts on the original topic of uncircumcising, and people who don't understand why anyone would do it...

For example:

1) A mother has one breast removed due to breast cancer. Do you think she is justified in having surgery to repair some of the damage done?

2) A mother has one of her infant daughter’s breasts removed to help protect her from future harm, since the mother had to have one removed due to cancer. Is the daughter justified in having surgery to repair some of the damage done?

3) A mother has one of her infant daughter’s breasts removed to help protect her from future harm, since one of the mother’s Bridge Club friends once had a niece who lost a breast to cancer. Is the daughter justified in having surgery to repair some of the damage done?

I’m sure you are asking yourself: Why would she need to replace what was so suitably removed? She has another, and it will function fine, and have plenty of sensation! If she loses it early enough, not only will she not feel the pain, but she will not remember, and she will never know what it would be like having two breasts. Needing to have it done later in life will only be more painful and traumatic. Hygiene would definitely be easier, and only take half the time. It is after all, her parent’s right to determine what is best!!!

Does the above still make sense if the foreskin is substituted? Do you still wonder why a man would want to reconstruct his foreskin, and feel betrayed for having it taken in the first place?

[deevee]

hi my husb is uncircumcised and i think its great

[Hooked]

Originally posted by Polarbear1:
Some thoughts on the original topic of uncircumcising, and people who don't understand why anyone would do it...

For example:

1) A mother has one breast removed due to breast cancer. Do you think she is justified in having surgery to repair some of the damage done?

2) A mother has one of her infant daughter’s breasts removed to help protect her from future harm, since the mother had to have one removed due to cancer. Is the daughter justified in having surgery to repair some of the damage done?

3) A mother has one of her infant daughter’s breasts removed to help protect her from future harm, since one of the mother’s Bridge Club friends once had a niece who lost a breast to cancer. Is the daughter justified in having surgery to repair some of the damage done?

I’m sure you are asking yourself: Why would she need to replace what was so suitably removed? She has another, and it will function fine, and have plenty of sensation! If she loses it early enough, not only will she not feel the pain, but she will not remember, and she will never know what it would be like having two breasts. Needing to have it done later in life will only be more painful and traumatic. Hygiene would definitely be easier, and only take half the time. It is after all, her parent’s right to determine what is best!!!

Does the above still make sense if the foreskin is substituted? Do you still wonder why a man would want to reconstruct his foreskin, and feel betrayed for having it taken in the first place?

Awesome post and hard to argue (although I wouldn't be surprised if someone did anyway)

[NudistTraveler]

I am uncircumsized but with a short foreskin. So one wouldn't know the difference. Our nude model for art class is also, but also has a short foreskin like me. I guess we have the best of both worlds!

Hugs, Carroll

[HereticChick]

Originally posted by Tara:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by KirkOntario:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tara:
I find it amazing that people will say it's a lot of flap about nothing, when it relates to infant boys. Yet it removes a natural, pleasurable (in later life) part of their anatomy. When they do this at a female circumcision it is seen as inhumane. One is "circumcision" while the other is "mutilation." Why the difference for males and females???
*snip* to save space

Tara, I could just hug and kiss you! You hit the nail directly on the head. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Hooked]

Originally posted by gormenghast20:
I've never heard this position before...if the male is rid of sexual desire how will the human race continue?

I said SOME sexuality is destroyed, not all. The idea is that some sexual desire is detroyed, enough to save the male from sin, but not all, so that when he's married, he can procreate. It's all a moot point anyway, this is a very victorian idea and those who still go with it are mentally whacked, in my humble opinion (which isn't to say that there aren't people like that because there certainly are)

[Mo]

Originally posted by Trailscout:
I know! Why don't we leave both boys and girls intact and quit worrying about who stands to lose the most?

Hmm, I have a better idea. Why don't we let people do whatever they damn well please so long as it doesn't directly affect us and it's not a crime according to the law?

It's wonderful that everyone has an opinion, and it's wonderful that we live in a country where we are free to express it. But when expression of those opinions turns into intrusion into people's lives, that's where you've crossed the line.

Live and let live! The world is sick of America sticking its collective nose into the business of other countries, but it's a chronic case with us. We do it to each other; is it any wonder we do it abroad? Are our own lives so complete and perfect that we have so much time to spend worrying about how others are leading theirs? I very much doubt it. How about we spend more time and energy making better humnas of ourselves before we point fingers, label and then start shooting people outside clinics.

[Hooked]

Originally posted by Mo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
I know! Why don't we leave both boys and girls intact and quit worrying about who stands to lose the most?

Hmm, I have a better idea. Why don't we let people do whatever they damn well please so long as it doesn't directly affect us and it's not a crime according to the law?

It's wonderful that everyone has an opinion, and it's wonderful that we live in a country where we are free to express it. But when expression of those opinions turns into intrusion into people's lives, that's where you've crossed the line.

Live and let live! The world is sick of America sticking its collective nose into the business of other countries, but it's a chronic case with us. We do it to each other; is it any wonder we do it abroad? Are our own lives so complete and perfect that we have so much time to spend worrying about how others are leading theirs? I very much doubt it. How about we spend more time and energy making better humnas of ourselves before we point fingers, label and then start shooting people outside clinics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you suggesting that there is no place in the world for child advocacy?

Yes, live and let live is a wonderful policy but we obviously can't do that all the time. You have to draw the line somewhere, I just hope that line is not a surgical reference point for mutilating a child. I guess you can say this issue is not important enough to discuss or bother trying to change but 16 pages of responses would say that more people think it IS worthy of discussion.

Just because it's not against the law, doesn't mean you ought to be doing it.

[Mo]

Originally posted by Hooked:
Are you suggesting that there is no place in the world for child advocacy?


Given free reign, child advocacy groups would have children taken away at birth from all parents who don't fit their "ideal" model. Is there a place for them? Yes. Like I said, everyone is free to express their opinions. But when they take away parental rights, they've crossed the line. Fortunately their efforts seem to be backlashing as states are, little by little, giving rights back to the parents as they begin to realize the stupidity of the current status quo.

Here's an excerpt from a series of articles along the same lines:

"The Spanking Bill"
RENO, NV July 21 - Many know it as "The Spanking Bill," it's a new Nevada law that allows parents to use corporal punishment on their children.

While some child advocacy groups come out against the measure at least one local parent says it's an absolute necessity. The issue of spanking has always been an emotional one, many groups' say it's inappropriate to spank a child for any reason. Many parents say that sometimes it's the only thing that works. We found one mom who says that the law will now protect people like her, who are falsely accused of child abuse. Debra is the mother of a ten-year-old girl. Three years ago, the girlfriend of her daughter's dad falsely accused her of beating her child with a hairbrush. "The police came to the daycare center and inspected my daughter without even notifying me...they found nothing," said Debra. There was no physical evidence of discipline because Debra says she didn't spank her child.

Now, a new Nevada law will take child abuse claims off a person's record, as long as there are no physical marks. Debra says it's a godsend to parents like her. "It will protect me and others like me who are good parents," she said. Senator Bill Raggio introduced the bill saying that sometimes children need to be reasonably disciplined with a spanking. It does not protect anyone who leaves bruises, welts, scars, fractures or any other physical evidence of disciplinary action on a child. However, while parenting experts at the Children's Cabinet couldn't comment directly on Raggio's law they say spanking isn't ever the answer. "Hitting only teaches a child that hitting is appropriate. They're getting a mixed message," said Shelly Dickson, Children's Cabinet. Her co-worker adds, "It damages their self-esteem and doesn't teach them anything," said Cynthia Martinez, Children's Cabinet. Debra says although she was never charged with any crime, the incident did result in a custody battle that has taken three years to resolve and she says she and her daughter will continue to feel the effects of that fight for a long time. The woman who falsely accused Debra says authorities told her they couldn't prosecute her because she was protected by laws that are designed to protect anyone who reports allegations of child abuse-even if they turn out to be unfounded.


Yes, live and let live is a wonderful policy but we obviously can't do that all the time. You have to draw the line somewhere, I just hope that line is not a surgical reference point for mutilating a child. I guess you can say this issue is not important enough to discuss or bother trying to change but 16 pages of responses would say that more people think it IS worthy of discussion.

I have nothing against discussion. But when discussion deteriorates into name-calling, it's called assault. (Assault \As*sault"\, n. : A violent onset or attack with moral weapons, as words,
arguments, appeals, and the like; as, to make an assault)


Just because it's not against the law, doesn't mean you ought to be doing it.
LOL! That's a very fine line you walk there, my friend. Everyone thinks that at least one thing someone else does is wrong. If they make unenforcable laws for everything that has a vocal group with some cash behind it, you not only erode our civil rights, you erode the foundation of the system itself.

Here's a solution: punish parents who take their babies to less-than-scrupulous "doctors" to have the procedure done. This falls under negligence and child endangerment. The punish the doctors that botch the job like with any other malpractice suit. Now you are targetting the real wrongdoers instead of those who are well within their right to have the procedure performed on their children. Punish the crime, not the thought.

[Hooked]

Originally posted by Mo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hooked:
Are you suggesting that there is no place in the world for child advocacy?


Given free reign, child advocacy groups would have children taken away at birth from all parents who don't fit their "ideal" model. Is there a place for them? Yes. Like I said, everyone is free to express their opinions. But when they take away parental rights, they've crossed the line. Fortunately their efforts seem to be backlashing as states are, little by little, giving rights back to the parents as they begin to realize the stupidity of the current status quo.

Here's an excerpt from a series of articles along the same lines:

"The Spanking Bill"
RENO, NV July 21 - Many know it as "The Spanking Bill," it's a new Nevada law that allows parents to use corporal punishment on their children. [SNIP]



Yes, live and let live is a wonderful policy but we obviously can't do that all the time. You have to draw the line somewhere, I just hope that line is not a surgical reference point for mutilating a child. I guess you can say this issue is not important enough to discuss or bother trying to change but 16 pages of responses would say that more people think it IS worthy of discussion.

I have nothing against discussion. But when discussion deteriorates into name-calling, it's called assault. (Assault \As*sault"\, n. : A violent onset or attack with moral weapons, as words,
arguments, appeals, and the like; as, to make an assault)


Just because it's not against the law, doesn't mean you ought to be doing it.
LOL! That's a very fine line you walk there, my friend. Everyone thinks that at least one thing someone else does is wrong. If they make unenforcable laws for everything that has a vocal group with some cash behind it, you not only erode our civil rights, you erode the foundation of the system itself.

Here's a solution: punish parents who take their babies to less-than-scrupulous "doctors" to have the procedure done. This falls under negligence and child endangerment. The punish the doctors that botch the job like with any other malpractice suit. Now you are targetting the real wrongdoers instead of those who are well within their right to have the procedure performed on their children. Punish the crime, not the thought. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. Thanks for answering my question although I do believe you take it way too far. I get the exagerated point you're making but it sounds like science fiction to me a la Orwell's 1989. Furthermore, while your article sited addresses parent's rights in a very interesting context, I don't believe it is at all pertinent (or at most minimally pertinent) to the issue of routine infant circumcision. All this talk about parents' rights. No one wants to take away a parent's rights, they simply want to preserve the child's right to a whole, in tact body. If I had to choose one over the other, I would go with the child because s/he cannot speak for him/herself, unlike the parent who can. I would be surprised if a large percentage of people would be upset by a law prohbiting circumcision anyway. Would parents be rallying for the right to mutilate their children's genitals? Sounds crazy to me (no offense intended).

2. I don't think I ever called anyone a name on this thread and I hope I never did on any other thread because that is not cool, so I hope that your comment about name called was not directed at me even though you did insert it between my quotes as if to be a counter-argument.

3. It is rude to "LOL" at someone when they are discussing something seriously, as by now everyone knows, I take this topic very seriously. I don't appreciate that. I'm taking a bold stance by saying I think RIC ought to be illegal. I don't know why that would be difficult to enforce. You get it out of hospitals and that's almost the end of it, as is happening on it's own without the law. You go on to say that unenforcable laws erode the our civil rights and the system itself. Um..ok...how does this opinion pertain to the discussion? Were you talking about anti-circ laws? If so, why would they be unenforceable and why would you pick only this fictitious law as the one to bring American society crashing down? Because I doubt that anything would happen to society other than at least a small improvement.

4. Your "solution" would not solve anything. The rights of the child still are sacrificed in your scenario. I never said to punish parents for taking their kids to get circ'd. I just want to see it taken out of common practice. If Jews and Muslims still insist on it due to religious values, then they can have it done by a medical professional in their church, although someday, I'd hope these groups would move away from the practice too (as many are already). Anti-circ laws don't mean lock the parents up, throw away the key and put the kids into the foster system.

[Mo]

Originally posted by Hooked:
1. Thanks for answering my question although I do believe you take it way too far. I get the exagerated point you're making but it sounds like science fiction to me a la Orwell's 1989. Furthermore, while your article sited addresses parent's rights in a very interesting context, I don't believe it is at all pertinent (or at most minimally pertinent) to the issue of routine infant circumcision. All this talk about parents' rights. No one wants to take away a parent's rights, they simply want to preserve the child's right to a whole, in tact body. If I had to choose one over the other, I would go with the child because s/he cannot speak for him/herself, unlike the parent who can. I would be surprised if a large percentage of people would be upset by a law prohbiting circumcision anyway. Would parents be rallying for the right to mutilate their children's genitals? Sounds crazy to me (no offense intended).

2. I don't think I ever called anyone a name on this thread and I hope I never did on any other thread because that is not cool, so I hope that your comment about name called was not directed at me even though you did insert it between my quotes as if to be a counter-argument.

3. It is rude to "LOL" at someone when they are discussing something seriously, as by now everyone knows, I take this topic very seriously. I don't appreciate that. I'm taking a bold stance by saying I think RIC ought to be illegal. I don't know why that would be difficult to enforce. You get it out of hospitals and that's almost the end of it, as is happening on it's own without the law. You go on to say that unenforcable laws erode the our civil rights and the system itself. Um..ok...how does this opinion pertain to the discussion? Were you talking about anti-circ laws? If so, why would they be unenforceable and why would you pick only this fictitious law as the one to bring American society crashing down? Because I doubt that anything would happen to society other than at least a small improvement.

4. Your "solution" would not solve anything. The rights of the child still are sacrificed in your scenario. I never said to punish parents for taking their kids to get circ'd. I just want to see it taken out of common practice. If Jews and Muslims still insist on it due to religious values, then they can have it done by a medical professional in their church, although someday, I'd hope these groups would move away from the practice too (as many are already). Anti-circ laws don't mean lock the parents up, throw away the key and put the kids into the foster system.

1. Perhaps I seeing shadows where there are none. But I sternly believe in government oversight. There are too many cases throughout history where everyone believed that something was simply exaggeration until they realized too late that it wasn't. No government is perfect, and while ours may be one of the best, there are a LOT of special interests with their hooks into it. They don't care about the betterment of society, only of a shift of society toward their own ideals. To that end, I distrust anyone who says they know what's best for my child. I know there are parents out there who think they are doing right by harming their children, but again, this falls into the "illegal" category. I speak of intentional or negligent mental or physical abuse. My solution works just fine in these cases.

2. "those who still go with it are mentally whacked"

3. If I was rude, it was unintentional. I didn't think you were being serious in that statement. I actually brought it up to one of my extreme right-wing friends who totally agreed with it. He said:


I think it is another way of expressing disgust with the breakdown of the societal norms that used to make this country liveable. I don't
remember who it was (John Locke, maybe) who said something to the effect that: if we
need laws to prohibit every action that shouldn't be taken, we are dead as a people.

Somehow as a country over the last forty years, we've adopted the idea that if it is not illegal then it is ok and it's not acceptable to
critisize. I hate that.


Very thought provoking until you combine it with the fact that he uses that same arguement when complaining about the general acceptance of homosexuality by society.

Meanwhile my libertarian acquaintance (actually a very close friend of my right-wing friend, if you can believe that) pretty much supported my reaction. He said:


Are you serious? That kind of statement is what's wrong with this society. Sure, let's go through everyone's business with a fine toothed comb. I'll bet we can find something in everything everyone does that we object to. Where do you draw the line in what's acceptable and what's not? And furthermore, who are you to tell me what's right and what's wrong? Majority? History has shown over and over and over that a majority, and to a greater extent, a vocal minority, have often caused the greatest calamities. (with a smile) Just look at our current president.

(and then he went on to say)
Aren't you a nudist? How many equally intolerant people would say you're "mutilating" the minds of your children by exposing them to nude bodies from the moment they are born. They don't have a say in whether or not they want to see you nude. But you do it becuase you believe as a parent that you're not doing your child any harm.


3(continued). You took my statement a little too literally. This one law would only be one of many that are already on the books that are unenforcable. I was going to get into how file swapping of music and movies has become so common-practice that many don't even think it's illegal, but you're right. I went a little off topic there as I got a little passionate about things I consider serious social problems. But only a little as it really was in response to your statement rather than the topic of this thread.

4. Here's my bold statement: Children have no rights except those set down by government and those set down by their parents. You earn the right to vote when you come of age as you earn the right to drink, drive, fight for your country, stop going to school and emancipate yourself from your parents. Fortunately or unfortunately, history will decide, there is a broad grey spectrum where government control ends and parental control begins. This spectrum is the purvue of the fault-finders. And sometimes they have been correct. When children were being "abused" by companies exploiting them as a tireless workforce, child labor laws were created to put an end to it. I'm sure there are other cases, but that's the only thing that comes to mind as I quickly write this. And that's also a clear case in which children were being intentionally abused (many were dying of exhaustion and of the poor conditions in which they worked) and which deserved government regulation.
It seems that circumcision is not as "common" a practice as you believe when according to some of the posts here, only a diminishing percentage of the U.S. are practicing it. I am skeptical of those claims, but I haven't bothered to research that point on my own, so I'll accept it tenuously as fact for now.

[Tall1890]

I was cut just after birth but have extra skin when soft, which can pull over it and tuck it away which I find handy when swimming or during hard physical activities. Does anyone do this?

[MarvinJS]

FWIW, I was loosely cut soon after birth. When I am flaccid, I have partial to total coverage.

The usual position is to have my glans covered as much as possible, and when there is shrinkage because of swimming or physical exertion, it is even more pronounced.

[BackpackerBrian]

Can we "cut" this topic???

[hazelton]

Originally posted by fordmustang:
Have any of you guys that are circumsised ever wished you weren't? I've always since I can remember, wish I had it back, and blame the parents/doctor for taking it without my consent.

I've been reading a book, "The Joy of Uncircumsizing" and wondered if any of you out there have started any of the various options for restoring at least the look of having foreskin.

Thanks

Hiya,
I was done for "emergency" reasons, at: Birth. And, I am very *proud* that I am a ( circumcised ) !. And, I have no question about, doing on my son,...if I ever had one. before I was born, the foreskin was so tight, that, it popped both sides, to,--- hernia's. I was in extream pain, before I came out of my mother. There's no-way that, I would ever, put it back around my penis. "NEVER" !

....Thanks,
Gregory

[hazelton]

Originally posted by fordmustang:
Have any of you guys that are circumsised ever wished you weren't? I've always since I can remember, wish I had it back, and blame the parents/doctor for taking it without my consent.

I've been reading a book, "The Joy of Uncircumsizing" and wondered if any of you out there have started any of the various options for restoring at least the look of having foreskin.

Thanks

Hiya,
My son, if I ever have one. Will be *emmediately* ( circumcised ), emmediately after: birth. !

Originally posted by hazelton:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordmustang:
Have any of you guys that are circumsised ever wished you weren't? I've always since I can remember, wish I had it back, and blame the parents/doctor for taking it without my consent.

I've been reading a book, "The Joy of Uncircumsizing" and wondered if any of you out there have started any of the various options for restoring at least the look of having foreskin.

Thanks

Hiya,
My son, if I ever have one. Will be *emmediately* ( circumcised ), emmediately after: birth. ! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what will you do if they cut it off?

[PascoDoug]

Originally posted by hazelton:
My son, if I ever have one. Will be *emmediately* ( circumcised ), emmediately after: birth. !

Hey while you're at it why not have his appendix removed too.

[hazelton]

Originally posted by hazelton:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordmustang:
Have any of you guys that are circumsised ever wished you weren't? I've always since I can remember, wish I had it back, and blame the parents/doctor for taking it without my consent.

I've been reading a book, "The Joy of Uncircumsizing" and wondered if any of you out there have started any of the various options for restoring at least the look of having foreskin.

Thanks

Hiya,
I was done for "emergency" reasons, at: Birth. And, I am very *proud* that I am a ( circumcised ) !. And, I have no question about, doing on my son,...if I ever had one. before I was born, the foreskin was so tight, that, it popped both sides, to,--- hernia's. I was in extream pain, before I came out of my mother. There's no-way that, I would ever, put it back around my penis. "NEVER"

to me,
an "un-circumcised" penis, is totally unsafe.
And, MUST be,-- Circumcised.!

Gregory </div></BLOCKQUOTE>