are you circumsized

[London Joe]

To K1396 and litlbigman1,

Are you serious when you say you have been 'complimented' by 'several' women on your uncircumcised appearance?? Sorry but I find that hard to believe! Fine - wife or girlfriend might have something to say but why on earth would you get into converations about how your pecker looks to other female friends who may be naturists or ladies you may speak to occasionally on the beach or at at club! Its just a conversation I could never imagine having - why would you (or they) start it in the first place?

Anyway, for me, my foreskin is still intact and I am thankful that it is. It's natural, its more attractive in my opinion - less 'in your face' than a big 'bell end' on show, and it would appear to me to be more sensitive when you are with a special lady - circumcised men by definition don't have any foreskin to cover the most sensitive part of the penis so it must get all dried out, rub against underwear the whole time and therefore lose sensitivity? I'm sure someone will enlighten me on this point though!

[jennan32za]

you may think nothing about the hypocrisy and double standard that female genital mutilation is appalling while male circumcision is quite alright.

Wow - you anti-circumcision guys ALWAYS bring this up, and you ALWAYS get it wrong.

Female "circumcision" is an entirely different proposition to male circumcision, with different aims, very different agendas and a vastly, vastly different endpoint. We circumcised guys still have plenty of nerve stimulation in our poor, abnormal, hideous, mutilated wieners, and we derive plenty of enjoyment from it, thanks.

Once you recognize the concept of personal body rights, you may be on your way to be farther down the road to understanding why many circumcised males sincerely resent that a structure of their bodies was rudely and crudely cut from them without their consent. Civilization is just a slow process of learning to be kind.

What are they resentful for, exactly? By definition, they don't know what they're missing, so how can they be resentful? Because some guy out there has told them his sex is more enjoyable than theirs? Should I hate my parents for not marrying into blonde genes because allegedly blondes have more fun and I have brown hair?

I personally know of only one guy who has reason to be resentful and that's because his circumcision was botched up and causes him sexual discomfort when it should be nothing but fun. There is a case in point for you to argue, if you want to get some proper ammunition for your side. None of my other circumcised friends or acquaintances are bothered by theirs.

-d-

[BlobbyBob]

It doesn't matter if people regard it as mutilation, it doesn't matter if those of you who were cut are happy with what you've got - the point is that it should be left soley to the owner of the penis, who, as an infant, cannot make an informed decision. There is no medical need for it in most cases, making it a cosmetic surgery - I know that our society is fixated on looking a certain way these days, but really? Cosmetic surgery on babies?!

As someone else said - billions of men aroung the world have foreskins and are happy with them. Leave babies alone and let them decide when they can make their own, informed decision.

[florida-david]

It doesn't matter if people regard it as mutilation, it doesn't matter if those of you who were cut are happy with what you've got - the point is that it should be left soley to the owner of the penis, who, as an infant, cannot make an informed decision. There is no medical need for it in most cases, making it a cosmetic surgery - I know that our society is fixated on looking a certain way these days, but really? Cosmetic surgery on babies?!

As someone else said - billions of men aroung the world have foreskins and are happy with them. Leave babies alone and let them decide when they can make their own, informed decision.

I agree, if you want to be cut later, than do it later. Don't hack un-knowing babies so doctor's can get a new Porsche...

[bgnaked]

Okay before this goes any further, let me just ask:
Does ANYONE actually feel like mass. routine circumcision is okay?? Like why would you want to be a certain, unnatural way if nobody else was.

[NudeTopher]

Okay before this goes any further, let me just ask:
Does ANYONE actually feel like mass. routine circumcision is okay?? Like why would you want to be a certain, unnatural way if nobody else was.


There are well over 70 pages on this thread. There are other similar threads on this website. Obviously some people feel that male circ is multilation and some don't. Those that don't believe it's mutilation accept some of the beneficial aspects of the proceedure. Reading this thread, or anyother, is not going to change anyone's mind. There are two schools of thought on this topic and I believe always will be.

[sbp]

oh thats sick, seriously, chopping off such a sensitive part of the body, causing the baby so much pain.well I am not circumcized.

[dan t]

Does it really matter?

[NudePhilip]

I do not care to start a rhubarb here, but if you were cut at or near birth, you are in no position to say if you like it better or not: you have no experience with which to compare. As for it being too difficult to clean, the same reasoning would apply to pulling your fingernails out because it is such an inconvenience to clean them. At birth, and for a number of years after, the foreskin is attached to the penis head by the same kind of tissue that connects our fingernails to our fingers, and in preparation for the cutting, the 'skin is first separated from the head by tearing it off with a blunt instrument like the (sterile) handle end of a surgical instrument. I never met the human being too stupid to learn how to care for himself; if he's unwilling, he deserves whatever happens. Fortunately, even then the likelihood of infection is very low, due to the self cleaning mechanism God put there, just as the ears have one.

Nationally, the U.S. circumcision rate in the 1960's was about 95%. It is now about 60% on the east coast, decreasing as you move west, until in California and Texas it is currently about 30%.

I am not happy about having 80% of the sexually sensitive nerves and surrounding tissue removed without my permission just because I am human male. Females in this country are legally protected from this barbarism and there is prison time associated with the CRIME of circumcising dogs and other animals. Only human males are considered to be so valueless as to be subjected to it. I am glad for the current generation that the trend is going in the right direction now.

[bgnaked]

I do not care to start a rhubarb here, but if you were cut at or near birth, you are in no position to say if you like it better or not: you have no experience with which to compare. As for it being too difficult to clean, the same reasoning would apply to pulling your fingernails out because it is such an inconvenience to clean them. At birth, and for a number of years after, the foreskin is attached to the penis head by the same kind of tissue that connects our fingernails to our fingers, and in preparation for the cutting, the 'skin is first separated from the head by tearing it off with a blunt instrument like the (sterile) handle end of a surgical instrument. I never met the human being too stupid to learn how to care for himself; if he's unwilling, he deserves whatever happens. Fortunately, even then the likelihood of infection is very low, due to the self cleaning mechanism God put there, just as the ears have one.

Nationally, the U.S. circumcision rate in the 1960's was about 95%. It is now about 60% on the east coast, decreasing as you move west, until in California and Texas it is currently about 30%.

I am not happy about having 80% of the sexually sensitive nerves and surrounding tissue removed without my permission just because I am human male. Females in this country are legally protected from this barbarism and there is prison time associated with the CRIME of circumcising dogs and other animals. Only human males are considered to be so valueless as to be subjected to it. I am glad for the current generation that the trend is going in the right direction now.

amen. I'm staying out of this thread now. hehe
however, I do feel and will still feel like it's disgraceful how bad the circumcision problem is still

[Griffin]

http://www.compleatmother.com/circ.htm. It is rich with information.

Also, come the start of the year, a lot of new collaborative efforts is being launched nationwide to make people aware of the medical impropriety of circumcision. The practice has been going on too long in America because parents are ignorant and the medical industry doesn't mind getting paid well for cutting on the helpless who cannot fight it. Just amazing the deal they've got going.

Intact America's Web site is in its infancy stage, but check out the beginnings of "Intact America His Body - His Choice." Hopefully the new funding sources that it has will get the information out far better than in the past. It is really a matter of education and breaking through the barrier of tired conventions and such shallow notions of a boy looking like his father, the cut penis looks better, that's what women prefer or it's cleaner. Good, God. God put it there for purposes like everything else in the body. So check out:

www.intactamerica.org

[ocdboi1]

no i am not circumcised nor do i ever want to be

[UnkleBuck]

I was not circumsied at birth but for medical reasons had it done at age 25,having lived a good portion of my life both ways I can honestly say i much prefer being circumsied( a good thing since theres no going back now)

[backwd84]

I am uncut and have alwys been glad that my parents didn't see fit to have me circumcised at birth. Being Canadian I think ther may be less pressure here for circumcission. There seems to be an open choice as about half of my friends were cut and half not.

[Fuzzy Nuts]

Very interesting. I am cut and I notice that over 80% (rough guess as i dont count penises) at any of the nudist resorts that I have visited are cut but again most people who go to nudist resorts are older people. Possibly if one were to take a poll of younger nudist there would be more uncut.

[Journeyman]

My Father, two years ago at age 88, was circumsized because it was getting increasinly difficult for him to urinate. His doctor virtually ordered the operation for fear of a much bigger problem to come. Now, almost at 90 years of age (in February '09), he urinates easily and without pain or apprehension.

Circumcision, like most medical procedures, has many sides to its story.

[Fitz1980]

Very interesting. I am cut and I notice that over 80% (rough guess as i dont count penises) at any of the nudist resorts that I have visited are cut but again most people who go to nudist resorts are older people. Possibly if one were to take a poll of younger nudist there would be more uncut.

That can also depend on where in the world, or even the USA, you are when you take your little look around. In the USA it was the only non-Jewish or non-Muslim nation where circumcision is common. If you are in Iowa it's probably the case where you won't see any who are uncut. If you are at Haulover Beach, here in South Florida, which is filled with Europeans, Latins, Africans & Asians it's a bit different.

If you were on a beach in France or South America the ratio would be much different. Where I grew up, WASP central, is where you hear of women who have lived whole lives without seeing an uncut man and find the appearance of it weird and gross. My old roommate Maria, who has had several boyfriends from other nations, finds it to be neither here nor there.

[Smiley]

Unfortunately I was circumcised. I couldn't walk or talk for a year after that:laugh:

[walter05]

Your post does not sound like a nudist post.

Nudists don't go to events to have fun with others' penises cut or not.

[catholicnudist]

I was circumsized as an infant. Also, don't have any problem with it. The vast majority of the males I have seen nude are cut.

[beachfun1002]

I am circumsized from birth so do not know any other way, have read how some members have reversed or at least tried to reverse the procedure. This does not sound like something I would be interested in personnelly, but it if it bothers you to be circumsized you, should do what ever will make you happy.

[traveling]

I was lucky, as an infant they thought I had a blood clotting problem, so they decided no cutting of skin was advisable. What was left alone has given me nothing but pleasure since, and oh by the way, no blood clot problem anyway. Helps when I go to clothes free locations outside the USA because they assume I am not an American, which can sometimes be an advantage.

[jaypac33]

I am but wish I was not who really cares I guess

[texasborncpl]

cut here... seems more attractive, if a penis can be made attractive... to me it doesnt matter as long as one can still receive sexual pleasure

[craig6444]

I am also cut, and a smoothie as well, love it both ways, so does my wife. :)

[bafromca]

I am circumcised, but it didn't take place until I'd reached the age of 7. As a paraplegic born with spina bifida, my parents weren't sure, at first, how long I would survive. Thus, the procedure was delayed for several years.

Although I remember how uncomfortable it was, I also remember that I was ultimately glad about it because it made me look more like my brothers and just about everybody else I came across later on as a young adult.

[bvd]

I am partially, but me sons were not circumcised. I've always felt it's a ridiculous procedure.

[TallMax41]

I was circumsized at birth as it was a common practice in North America in the 1950's & 60's. Can understand both sides of the debate on this issue, but personally I'm glad I am cut.

[nude-alan]

I too was circumsized as an infant. I am hust glad that I have no memory of the event.

[thaish]

i was too........

[pelagius]

Same here. I know several other guys in the UK who do this too.



I'm not circumcised but I do prefer having my foreskin rolled back permanently, I've got used to it that way and so has my wife. I always thought I was an oddity for doing this but have recently discovered several forums on this subject and a lot of men do just this. Now I feel like I'm in a different group or club, which I'm happy about.

I also found out that in some countries, Japan for instance, it is the normal practice to keep it rolled back. So as far as I'm concerned I have the best of both worlds by keeping my foreskin, it looks almost like a circumcised penis but still has all the foreskin sensitivity.

[218]

Not circumcised but do sometimes roll the skin back and leave it there for a while.

[topher97202]

I am. My son is not. And I am happy to hear that many of my friends have chosen not to circumcise their newborns as well.

[CTNudist]

I am not circumcised, and very happily so.

It's a good thing the practice of circumcision is dying out in it's last major stronghold, the United States*, as there is no reason for it besides aesthetics. While there are sometimes medical reasons for partial circumcision, statistically the number is miniscule. In terms of percentage, it makes more sense to give all women mastectomies in hopes of preventing breast cancer than it does to circumcise all men to prevent phimosis.

As for women preferring circumcised penises more: Any women who has been so promiscuous that she has actually developed a taste for penis types is frankly not someone I want to be with.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

*Though the procedure has been and will continue to be preformed for religious reasons among both Jews and Mohammedans. It is worth noting the circumcision mandated for a time in the Bible - and even the Quran - was never as dramatic and total as the "tight" circumcisions seem in America.

[Fitz1980]

As for women preferring circumcised penises more: Any women who has been so promiscuous that she has actually developed a taste for penis types is frankly not someone I want to be with.


What's promiscuous to you? Plus most women who have such a preference of penis types it is based on appearance, not function. She could be a virgin and have such a preference.

[afzilla]

As for women preferring circumcised penises more: Any women who has been so promiscuous that she has actually developed a taste for penis types is frankly not someone I want to be with.

Man, those ladies are going to be devastated to hear that.

[NudeTopher]

.. Any women who has been so promiscuous that she has actually developed a taste for penis types is frankly not someone I want to be with...

One does not errr umm need to take a car for a test drive to be turned off to the style.

Sometimes visual cues are all it takes. Some are drawn the gracious lines of a Jaguar and will not be caught dead being driven in a frumpy minivan.

Certainly you too react to visual cues: fat/thin, hair color, etc. After all, you even judge females on if they have had two or more sexual partners.

Being judgemental is a terrible burdon. You can judge girls that have had two or more sexual partners (so they could have experienced cut and uncut); but you don't want girls judging you on the looks of your body part that you expect them to take in orally, vaginally, or anally.

[CTNudist]

But Jewish people have been doing it for YEARS and they are still cool with it. So it can't be entirely that bad if an entire race of people have done it since the days of Moses. Be easy.

Old Testament and Islamic circumcisions were and are never as dramatic and total as is the common practice in the United States.

[NudeTopher]

Old Testament and Islamic circumcisions were and are never as dramatic and total as is the common practice in the United States.

Please post the source of that statement.

[CTNudist]

Regarding Old Testament practices*:

Circumcision: http://www.fisheaters.com/circumcision.html

Regarding Islamic practices**:

Traditional Muslim Male Circumcision: http://www.ummah.net/what-is-islam/misc/circum.htm

*A distinction should be made between the Judaism we read about in the Old Testament and modern-day Judaism. The religion was drastically restructured following the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. At that point, with the Pharisees being the only Jewish group to have survived Roman reprisals in large measure, the type of circumcisions commonly associated with Judaism today became the norm across the board.

**There is some leeway on how much skin to remove. My point for mentioning this Mohammedans was to point out "tight" circumcision is not by any means universal among them.

[walter05]

During the time of the Greeks, there was a major movement to hide circumcisions. The Greeks had events such as the Olympics in the nude. Some Jews wanted to participate. The Greeks felt that a glans penis is only exposed for sex and so an expolsed glans was obscene. The Greeks also felt that since their deities were uncircumcised, circumcision was an insult to their deities.

The Rabbis instituted a change in the procedure that leaves the entire foreskin off.

For the last 2,100 years, your statement about Jews has been false.

Walter

[CTNudist]

The link I posted addressed the issue of Jews hiding their circumcision at that time.

If a man had no foreskin whatsoever - the practice since AD 70 - there could have been no attempt whatsoever to hide one's circumcision. However, as the article I cited mentioned, the requirements of Old Testament circumcision left enough skin to strech and potentially cover the glands. Hence the very real problem arose of Jews trying to hide who they were (cf 1 Maccabees 1: 13-15).

[walter05]

Your timing is a little off. It was during the Greek era. This would have been about 150 years before the common era.

You are correct on the original requirement however.

Walter

[CTNudist]

Maccabean Wars, prior to which some Jews attempted to hide their circumcisions (thus implying very "loose" circumcisions), happened at about the same time, the 160s BC.

The date AD 70 was only mentioned to underscore this as the date circumcision was altered in Judaism, along with many other practices to deal with the loss of the Temple. Sorry for any confusion.

[Craigintexas]

It was done for health reasons initially but now that most people are not 'out in the wild for days at a time', circumcision is not done nearly as often as some people feel. Parents can ask the doctor when the child is born to do it or not to do it on their baby

[walter05]

The change took place during the Maccabean wars.

[paoolos]

I am uncircumcised, I am Australian though, the majority of males are uncut here, The percentage of males being uncut is growing here

[danbookman]

Not circumcized, even though the doctor pleaded with my mom to do it. None of the males in my family are, maybe because we're Hispanic. I don't have anything against it, but if I have a son I wouldn't inflict him the pain and risk of complications. Penises are penises either way, so trying to beautify them is up to the owner in my opinion.

[thesuperstar]

Hi Jen. Here back in Canada when I was born in the 1970, most did get circumsized. I consider myself one of the lucky ones and didnt have it done. The thoughts from the doctors was that if you didnt get it done that there would be very high risk at infections but as we now know today that if kept properly cleaned that there is very little risk of ever having to get it done at an older age(which could happen but very rarely I think) So the circumcision went from the doctors just doing the procedure without asking and was paid for by the federal government to not being performed unless the mother requests it and a fee of around $100 is paid by her. So needless to say that now a days here in Canada there a very few in this generation that get it done.

OR

Maybe its just that it can get cold here in Canada and we need our toques on. LOL

[Martinline]

I was circumcised as a baby. I now have a penis that is not sexually disfunctional in any way. If anything, I have a problem with not be able to last long enough during intercourse. If being uncircumcised made me more sensitive, I would orgasm within the first few seconds of stimulation.

My $0.02.

[azgreen]

I am forever miffed by those who dismiss their own circumcisions as fine, OK, nothing to fuss about, what's the big deal?, etc., and use that to offer that it is just fine to allow circumcisions to go on unchecked. These folks fail to recognize a fundamental issue of individual rights and sovereignty over one's own body. While some males may think their circumcisions as infants were just fine, that cannot be used to say circumcisions performed on others against their will are OK. It should always be the sole decision of the owner of the foreskin to decide its fate. That is why routine infant circumcision cannot go on. Thank goodness for the many organizations working for infant rights. Intactamerica.org is one of those. Check out this newly posted article:
http://www.hvparent.com/articles/article.aspx?id=992

[BinCo]

Yup. By a US Navy doctor that was drunk. Looks like war wounds.

Otherwise, no big deal. I wouldn't know anything different and it does not bother me.

[Being-veggie-being]

I am circumcised.

Circumcised at age 5 (UTI's and hypospadias).

Sometimes life happens.

It should always be a choice, preferably that of the penis-owner if there are no health issues in childhood.

[nakenone]

I am opposed to routine,anything,it is the mom an dads decision.Its there decision to engage in intercource to produce offspring If you come off with thinking that at birth a child is now able to decide or you joe publick are going to decide not the parent.Thats Adolf Hitler at his best.Get your head out of your ***,i am absolutely amaised at this topic,grow it back if you want,do a little research an streaching that skin,just wine a little more an tell me your doing it for the children . I suggest you take your eyes off your pecker or others peckers,long, short,cut un cut,cant find it etc. an find a productive outlet for your life. NAKENONE

[vintagecarguy]

I am opposed to routine,anything,it is the mom an dads decision.Its there decision to engage in intercource to produce offspring If you come off with thinking that at birth a child is now able to decide or you joe publick are going to decide not the parent.Thats Adolf Hitler at his best.Get your head out of your ***,i am absolutely amaised at this topic,grow it back if you want,do a little research an streaching that skin,just wine a little more an tell me your doing it for the children . I suggest you take your eyes off your pecker or others peckers,long, short,cut un cut,cant find it etc. an find a productive outlet for your life. NAKENONE

Well,well,well.
What a vile attitude.How very offensive.
One may grow back a fauxskin that appears natural but it LACKS the specialized nerves,ridged band,frenulum and there is no way to repair the damage done to the nervous system.
I am glad that your post brought up the nazis.They were the masters of the techniques you employed in your post.
Ridicule....head out of your ***
insult.......wine(whine) a little more an(and) tell me your doing it for the children.(I am,it's too late for me)
more insult and ridicule...yes,all the hallmarks of Joseph Goebbels,reich minister of propaganda.

I assume your intent was to defend the (misguided in my opinion) idea that amputating a normal healthy part of a child is a parental right.
What you have succeeded in doing is insulting anyone who finds the cutting of childrens genitals,no matter what the childs gender(female children already enjoy laws protecting their genital integrity here in the USA) wrong.

[nakenone]

Look adolf,this topic has been nice enough ,an the continued BS an its for the children an i have suffered an iam mained for life. Get your head out of your-----.You must represent the US government democratic party pass more laws ,confine the people regulate freedom, You just dont get it.Were are opposed to your types of people that will take a parents right to make a decision about there kid,an give it to the USA court system.This topic is none of your business,you do what you think i do what i think.Dont tell me what to do. The next thing your going to say is only white arian people are allowed to have children because other races are stupid Adolph aare you listening..To arms ,to arms the britist are comming,we will not water down the constitution,we will not run ,we will stand an fight. NAKENONE

[Gabe]

Yes I am. I was not consulted. My son is not. I would have liked the chance to decide.

[MoonShadow]

Well,well,well.
....,no matter what the childs gender(female children already enjoy laws protecting their genital integrity here in the USA) wrong.

Normally, I am not in this thread but this line caught my eye. Just what laws are you referring to regarding female genitalia?

[vintagecarguy]

Normally, I am not in this thread but this line caught my eye. Just what laws are you referring to regarding female genitalia?


What laws against female genital cutting exist in the United States?
Since 1998, 16 states have instituted criminal sanctions against the practice of FGC: California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin.5 A federal law criminalizing the practice was passed in 1996 and became effective in April 1997. The law provides that the practice of FGC on a person(s) under the age of 18 is a federal crime, unless the procedure is necessary to protect the health of a young person or for medical purposes connected with labor or birth. The penalty for violating this law is a fine or imprisonment for up to five years, or both. This law specifically exempts cultural beliefs or practices as a defense for conducting FGC

[MoonShadow]

Yes, I am aware of female genitalia mutiliations laws being instituted in the US due to those cultures who practice female genitalia mutilations which is the removal of the clitoris. This is totally different from the removal of foreskin. Removing the foreskin of a penis will not disrupt pleasure whereas the removal of the clitoris does.

If I recall, it did not exempt those cultures who practice this. I will look into this as this was the reason the law was instituted. Will obtain more informatin.

Here is further information on this topic: http://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/pub_bp_fgmlawsusa.pdf

[MrJeff]

I think it should be the choice of the owner and not done as a child.

Having said that, I was circumsized as a child and for myself I am glad it was done. I like the look and I am very happy with it.

[richo]

Removing the foreskin of a penis will not disrupt pleasure whereas the removal of the clitoris does.

Actually, this is exactly the contention - the foreskin itself contains a large amount of nerves. Removal of it not only removes those nerve endings but also changes the nature of the penis head itself (the skin hardens and made less sensitive). As a result, the experience is highly changed and sensation likely severely decreased.

(For those wondering, what the "restoration" techniques mainly do, in addition to the aesthetic aspects, is re-cover the penis head to allow the skin to soften again, restoring sensation there. Obviosuly, the nerves in the foreskin can't be recovered, but it's at least some increase in sensation.)

I'm sort-of half-circumcized (there's enough skin to cover 2/3 of the head, give or take), and even I can tell the difference between myself and fully circumcized penises in the physical aspects (level of sensitivity and skin texture, if nothing else); I've never been involved wth someone who was uncircumcized, so I can't comment on that direction.

Now, my understanding is that removal of the clitoris removes almost all sensation - removing the foreskin does not. That being said, blinding one eye in your child instead of both shouldn't be allowable on the grounds that you can still see a bit. If the process is deemed immoral when used against women, it should be deemed immoral against men as well.

[MoonShadow]

Actually, this is exactly the contention - the foreskin itself contains a large amount of nerves. Removal of it not only removes those nerve endings but also changes the nature of the penis head itself (the skin hardens and made less sensitive). As a result, the experience is highly changed and sensation likely severely decreased.




Mmmm, how many circumsized men do not enjoy the SENSATION of sexual pleasure????? :)

[MoonShadow]

If the process is deemed immoral when used against women, it should be deemed immoral against men as well.

Actually, neither are deemed immoral.

And, as a woman, I prefer the circumsized penis over the penis that isn't. Big difference in how they feel and perform, so-to-speak ;)

For men, each to their own :)

[vintagecarguy]

Mmmm, how many circumsized men do not enjoy the SENSATION of sexual pleasure????? :)

None of the boys who die from the procedure enjoy anything.
The boys who loose their whole penis don't enjoy it.
My neighbor who lost his glans to infant circ isn't loving it.
I have seriously messed up sensation so half the time I experience PAIN,not pleasure.

It's o.k. you prefer cut men.If an adult wants to be cut for you,great!No problem.But what about men who insist they wont be with a woman who isn't cut?I for one most certainly do NOT consider that a reason to allow cutting a baby girl.

And as for female circ being soo different,it depends...There are many forms.
It's all dead wrong...ALL FORMS of cutting little girls and boys.
From removal of the clitoral hood-analogous to male circ without complications.
To clitoral removal-analogous to loss of the glans in the male.
And removal of clitoris and labia-analogous to loss of entire penis.
And to add insult to injury when a male looses his penis to some circ mishap doctors may then remove his testicles and attempt to reassign his gender.This would be like giving a girl a hysterectomy after a radical female cir.
And BOTH genders die from circumcision mishaps.
Adults are free to choose to cut,pierce or alter themselves but lets not hack up babies.

[EricNY]

Look adolf,this topic has been nice enough ,an the continued BS an its for the children an i have suffered an iam mained for life. Get your head out of your-----.You must represent the US government democratic party pass more laws ,confine the people regulate freedom, You just dont get it.Were are opposed to your types of people that will take a parents right to make a decision about there kid,an give it to the USA court system.This topic is none of your business,you do what you think i do what i think.Dont tell me what to do. The next thing your going to say is only white arian people are allowed to have children because other races are stupid Adolph aare you listening..To arms ,to arms the britist are comming,we will not water down the constitution,we will not run ,we will stand an fight. NAKENONE


Dude....Relax a little! You are crossing the line a bit. Lets remain respectful in our choice of words and ways of disagreeing.

[MrJeff]

Mmmm, how many circumsized men do not enjoy the SENSATION of sexual pleasure????? :)

I am very sensitive, there is no loss of sensation for me

[richo]

Actually, neither are deemed immoral.

And, as a woman, I prefer the circumsized penis over the penis that isn't. Big difference in how they feel and perform, so-to-speak ;)

For men, each to their own :)

Er, wait... forced circumcision of infant girls isn't immoral?

[MoonShadow]

what does morality have to do with circumcising or female mutilating?

[TLCTugger]

I am very sensitive, there is no loss of sensation for me

How can you say that? A person born with color-blindness might say "I see everything I need to see." But they are not seeing everything others see.

As the amputated foreskin includes about half of the sensual pleasure-receptive nerve endings (depending on where the cut is made) and about 15 square inches of sexual interface (depending on the penile size) it's simply not rational to say nothing is lost.

To me, it's an atrocious afront to the autonomy of the individual. You'd like to be able to tell your kids "say no to drugs" and stuff like that, but if the most basic healthful natural source of intense pleasure is muted, can you blame people who crave something zestier?

I don't want sex that's good enough. I want toes-curling ecstacy that lasts and lasts. And I want it frequently. Without a foreskin, the more you use a penis, the more it gets rubbed raw.

-Ron

[TLCTugger]

what does morality have to do with circumcising or female mutilating?

Tell me your moral code and I'll tell you what I think it has to do with it.

If your moral code is as simple as the 10 commandments, then Thou Shall Not Steal has infant circumcision covered. It is absolutely stealing if you take someone's healthy normal body part when their informed consent can not be obtained.

-Ron

[TLCTugger]

No, I am not christian

I still want to know what morality has to do with circumsizing and female mutilating

FYI Jews also claim the decalogue.

What is the question exactly? Is there a moral code where it's OK to hurt people?

I'd answer that having yourself circumcised has nothing to with morality, unless you're suffering from Bodily Integrity Identity Disorder. In that case I'd say it's immoral for a doctor to take your money and amputate a healthy normal body part, rather refering you for treatment of your disorder.

But that's because my moral code is basically minimize suffering when possible, and leave the world inhabitable for future generations.

-Ron

[MoonShadow]

F

But that's because my moral code is basically minimize suffering when possible, and leave the world inhabitable for future generations.

-Ron


Exactly, YOUR moral code. But how are circumsized men suffering?

[vintagecarguy]

Exactly, YOUR moral code. But how are circumsized men suffering?


How?HOW?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Can't you read?!?!?!?!?!?!?
How many of us have posted our very personal troubles here?
How many sit quietly afraid of the ridicule heaped on those of who do speak out?
?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!?!?
Amazing blindness.
Stunning lack of compassion.
Look up the name David Reimer.
Thats all one needs to know about how are circumcised men suffering.
He's one of many and they are many more silent.

[MoonShadow]

How?HOW?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Can't you read?!?!?!?!?!?!?
How many of us have posted our very personal troubles here?
How many sit quietly afraid of the ridicule heaped on those of who do speak out?
?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!?!?
Amazing blindness.
Stunning lack of compassion.
Look up the name David Reimer.
Thats all one needs to know about how are circumcised men suffering.
He's one of many and they are many more silent.


Whoa, buddy! Yes, I have been reading but considering that most men, at least here in the US are circumcized, I don't think they are suffering ill effects which is contrary to what you are posting. And pluleeze --- let's not talk about blindness and lack of compassion here when most of those circumcized have said they feel no ill effects. It seems you are the one who refuses to hear what they are saying.

I think I am leaving this topic and let you have your rant to all the circumcized men here.

G'day

[azgreen]

What is so incredibly frustrating and breathtakingly astounding in this discussion is the arrogrance to say that because "I don't miss my foreskin" or "I like it better without one" can be so utterly transferable to all males, so that they supposedly wouldn't miss theirs either. False. There is a failure to recognize that each human should have sovereignty and say over his/her body. Some of us resent greatly that someone -- yes loving parents -- unfairly made that choice, typically because of being uninformed or part of a generation where medical science was still finding its way and buying into false ideas.
Now we know a lot, lot more about what specialized and delicate components there are in the structure of the foreskin. And for us who have restored and have a modicum of what the foreskin should have been for us, it is sheer nonsense to dismiss the foreskin. Having one IS preferred by the vast majority of intact men and those of us who have restored.
To you who keep touting you cut status, most of you never had much of chance to know what it was like with a foreskin. You simply "don't know what you are missing."
I just changed the diaper on my 17-month-old intact grandson, and I take great pride that his parents had the judgment, compassioin and instincts to leave him alone, just as we did with our son 34 years ago.

[walter05]

My concerns are simple.

In the past, protesting circumcision was an excuse for persecution of Jews. Any movement to outlaw circumcision until the male is old enough to consent would outlaw Judaism.

Islam also practices circumcision yet it is at different ages.

In Africa today, there is a major program to circumcise to prevent AIDS. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/world/africa/28africa.html?_r=1.

There are those who want their sons circumcised for other reasons. There are those who choose it for themselves. There are also those who are circumcised for medical reasons.

There are those who choose not to be circumcised or to circumcise their kids. That is okay. An uncircumcised penis is not necessarily dirtier, uglier, etc. No one should be ridiculed or humilated for not being circumcised.

This should be a matter of personal choice. We should not persecute, degrade, or humiliate those who disagree with us.

[TLCTugger]

>> my moral code is basically minimize suffering when possible <<

Exactly, YOUR moral code. But how are circumsized men suffering?

I guess you can't read between the lines of everyting that's aleready been posted. No matter who pays, circumcision will cost:

- 20,000 pleasure-receptive nerve endings (more than in the glans, more than in the clitoris).

Circumcised men suffer less pleasure receptivity.

- 15 square inches (in the adult) of exquisite sexual interface.

Circumcised men suffer less pleasure receptivity.

- Natural protection from the drying and abrasive effects of clothing and air for the glans and adjacent mucosa.

Circumcised men suffer less comfort and pleasure receptivity.

- The unique "ridged band" of sexual nerves; rich in Meissner's Corpuscles.

Circumcised men suffer less pleasure receptivity.

- The preputial sphincter which keeps diaper contaminants from irritating the urinary meatus and causing stenosis.

Circumcised men suffer impaired urinary health less pleasure receptivity.

- The intactness of the frenulum, the neurological homologue to the clitoris.

Circumcised men suffer less pleasure receptivity.

- The natural frictionless rolling/gliding mode of stimulation during manipulation and intimacy.

Circumcised men suffer less pleasure receptivity and their partners lose out on comfort during intimacy.

- His right to self-determination.

Circumcised men suffer loss of self-determination.

- Best chances for 100% condom use (Many cut guys are missing so much feeling they are loathe to detract further with a condom).

Circumcised men suffer loss of maximum pleasure despite condom use.

- An extra 0.25 days of maternal hospitalization, on average.

Circumcised men's familes suffer an economic loss.

- 20 minutes of intense agony for him.

Circumcised males suffer intensely during the procedure.

- 14 days of painful healing in soiled diapers.

Circumcised males endure the risk of dangerous infection during healing.

- 65 million years of mammalian evolution and refinement - every mammal on earth evolved a foreskin, before there was surgey or soap.

Circumcised males suffer loss of normally evolved function.

- Optimal nursing bonding and success (in many cases).

Circumcised males suffer loss of normal nursing success probability and all the attendent benefits.

- Risk of unexpected outcome (see the images of common under-reported side-effects by Googling "circumcision damage").

Circumcised males endure the risk of hideous unexpected outcomes. Just Google "circumcision damage." Assymetry, painful bulgy truncated vein, jagged scar, skin bridges, pits and gouges to the glans, painfully tight shaft skin upon erection, painfully tight shaft scrotal skin upon erection, painfully foreshortened erect length, loss of the glans, loss of the penis, loss of the testicles when gender re-assignment is resorted to, death.

- A lifetime for him to wonder what he did to deserve a scar on his penis, and what normal sex might feel like.

Circumcised males suffer risk of anxiety over what they might be missing.

- A lifetime for parents to wonder about the impact it has had on the trust between parent and child.

Circumcised males suffer risk of loss of normal familial social bonds.

- Possible follow-up medical care. (The cost of American circumcision revisions and related corrections and treatments matches the half-million dollars spent every year in the procedure).

Circumcised males suffer risk of needing additional expensive and risky medical intervention.

- Sense of normalcy - as 95% of the non-Muslim world does not circumcise. The US rate is about 50/50 and fewer than 25% of infants are cut in the 4 Western states.

Circumcised males suffer loss of normally evolved function.

- AND about $400 for the procedure.

- - - - -

With over a million babies cut in the US that makes it a $500 million industry just for the cutters. It is said that follow-up plus and revisions for those with unexpected complications is at least another $500 million, plus the maternity hospital stay is on average 0.25 days longer with an infant circ, so that's another $400 million.

Foreskin feels REALLY good. Leave him perfect, leave him intact.

Spare him suffering.

-Ron

[TLCTugger]

My concerns are simple.

In the past, protesting circumcision was an excuse for persecution of Jews. Any movement to outlaw circumcision until the male is old enough to consent would outlaw Judaism.

Female genital cutting is already illegal with no religious exemption even though many Muslims feel it is part of Islam.

In Africa today, there is a major program to circumcise to prevent AIDS. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/world/africa/28africa.html?_r=1.

In Africa today, there are many people who recognize the nonsense in this initiative: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2009/07/prweb2625754.htm

Most of the US men who have died of AIDS were circumcised at birth.

This should be a matter of personal choice. We should not persecute, degrade, or humiliate those who disagree with us.

Totally. The PERSONAL CHOICE of the PERSON whose penis it is.

We absolutely cannot exempt religious cutting, BECAUSE OF the US separation of church and state. We can't have a law that says "you are protected from unnecessary genital cutting UNLESS your parents happen to have a certain religion." The law must protect everyone equally regardless of the religion of some other person. Religious freedom is the right to THINK what you want about things which can't otherwise be known. It is not the right to HURT people based on those beliefs. The law has already held that religion is no basis for denying minors needed medical treatment like blood transfusion.

-Ron

[walter05]

TLCTUGGEr;

First, on the topic, Pre-Naturist nudity, you posted:

"Today I work in a field (helping circumcised men restore their foreskins) that has pretty much required me to show my genitals liberally on the internet (because I can't afford to hire models every time I have a new technique to demonstrate). I was recently nude on the Howard Stern Show for his cable TV audience of millions."

You are paid to help men who have been circumcised restore the foreskins. That is your profession that you get paid for.

You would make Judaism illegal. All Orthodox and conservative Jews as well as virtually all others would be criminals and subject to sanctions.

When a man claims to like his circumcised penis, you reject it out right.

When a woman says she prefers a circumcised penis, you get harsh.

I think the only true suffering is you fail to earn any money on circumcised men who are happy being circumcised.

[vintagecarguy]

You would make Judaism illegal. All Orthodox and conservative Jews as well as virtually all others would be criminals and subject to sanctions.

No,just no cutting of children,when they are an adult they can freely mark their faith in THEIR skin,just no marking of the faith in the CHILDS skin by the adult.If I had a cult that required the removal of ears because the holy Smooth Headed Lord demanded it should I be allowed to chop off baby ears?NO,but as adults we could do it to ourselves.

When a man claims to like his circumcised penis, you reject it out right.

I don't.I say I'm happy for him because I don't wish the troubles I've had on others.I just want the owner of the penis to have his birthright.The CHOICE,HIS CHOICE.

When a woman says she prefers a circumcised penis, you get harsh.

I don't find an adult woman's sexual fetish for a surgically altered penis to trump a mans right to his OWN penis.If an adult man wants to alter his OWN penis.Great!Go for it.I hope it works out for you.
I don't find that the men who demand a circumcised woman have any right to cut girls.If an ADULT woman wants to do that it is HER right as an ADULT.

Just stop cutting babies.Let the ADULT owners of genitalia,both male and female have their birthright.Childrens bodies are not a canvas for adults to declare their faith or fetishes.

[walter05]

vintagecarguy;

3,721 years ago, Abraham fulfilled the commandment to circumcise his son on the 8th day of life.

3,321 Moses transmitted the command to have all of the males circumcised on the 8th day.

Since then, all Jewish males following the commandments as set down by Moses have been circumcised on the 8th day.

If you outlaw that practice, you outlaw Judaism. I am obviously against that.

Your concept of individual rights and what you consider right and wrong should trump all. A faith that has survived for over 3,000 years should cease because of your concept of right and wrong.

Your comparison to a cult is insulting and ignorant.

The Ancient Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Inquistors, Nazis, etc. raised objections to the Jewish practice of circumcision. Some of them similar to yours. Your arguments are not new.

Over 3,000 years from now Jewish males circumcised on the 8th day of life will still be hearing those arguments.

[walter05]

I want to add one more point on this.

The day before yesterday, I was at a nudist resort. There were circumcised and non-circumcised males.

The last thing we want if we want to promote nude recreation is a standard on circumcision.

[azgreen]

Tugger:
I salute your wonderful passion and tremendous medical detail on the clear mindlessness of routine infant circumcision. You are absolutely correct about the nonsense presented that to criticize or even ban circumcision would somehow undermine Judaism. As I have said so often over the years on CFI forums, pity any religion that hinges its fate on the chopping off the tips of penises. It's perverse and macabre. If some nut invented circumcision today, he'd be committed to the psche ward of the jail.
Over and over again, we see the greatest critics and writers against circumcision are Jews (Ron Goldman, Edward Wallenstein, Rosemary Romberg, Dr. Paul Fleiss, Dr. Dean Edell, Eliyahu Unger-Sargon, Norm Cohen, Howard Stern etc.). One need only read some of the scholarly work "Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern America" by Leonard B. Glick (Oxford University Press, 2005, 370 pages) to quickly see how Jews have been so conflicted themselves about circumcision over the millennia, very inconsistent in practicing it over the ages, and full of critics in their ranks. Page 133: "Indeed, whenever I have attended this (bris) ceremony, I have never perceived a devout, solemn attitude in any participant. Every time, to be certain, I have seen the pale, trembling father offering his sacrifice to the mohel, while the shocked, delicate mother awaits in anxious agony the return of her passionately loved infant. I have seen many of those in attendance fall in a faint....A ceremoney dripping in blood, eliciting cries of pain and agony, arousing pity and dread in some, revulsion in others, a sacrificial oath offered with a body part..."
Folks, this is 2009. Not 2000 B.C.E. Jews, who pride themselves on human dignity and intellect, practice something terribly anachronistic here that does NOT further civilization.
Tugger is correct. No religion can justify such primitive, onerous actions to further its religion. I know good Jews who reject circumcision. Beyond that, this debate should be outside religion because most circumcisions in this country are not religious, so it gets back to human rights, self-determination over ones own body, leave such strange acts to adults.
If you really want less penis, go for it as an adult, but let infants and children to grow up and make their own decisions.
Moreover, we would be abandoning our Jewish brothers if we gave Judaism a pass on this. It would be grossly unfair to Jewish baby boys to forsake them in this cause for genital integrity and justice.

[baregreg]

:eatpopcorn:

[maxnude]

By Walter05
Since then, all Jewish males following the commandments as set down by Moses have been circumcised on the 8th day.

Not true Walter, there is a growing movement of Jews not circumcising male infants on the 8th day.

A unscientific survey conducted recently by MAMY, an Israeli parenting Web site, found that 3.2 percent of Israeli Jews no longer circumcise.

It's hard to know how many Jews are giving up the practice, as statistics are not broken down by religion.

http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish3.html

[walter05]

Maxnude;

There is a clear commandment in the scripture. Unless Jewish Law provides an exception, such as for a hemopheliac, all Jewish males are circumcised.

Any Jewish male who is not circumcised and does not have an exception provided in Jewish Law is considered cut off from the Jewish people. Once again, that is Biblical law.

Any parent who is circumcised and who knowingly chooses not to circumcise a son is also cut off.

If the operation part is done, but the religious requirements for blessings and declarations are not followed, the male and any parent is also cut off from the Jewish people according to the law. If it is corrected later, the individual can return.

Any non-Jewish male wishing to convert requires a circumcision. If the non-Jewish male is circumcised, the same correction as above is done.

That is the law from scripture through the Talmud to today.

People can make up what they want and call it what they want if they do something else, but under Jewish law, if males are not circumcised, they are cut off from the Jewish people. We may not like the law, but that is the law. Any one who says otherwise is incorrect.

You can hold your incorrect view of what Jewish law from the Bible to today holds. I will not argue that any more than I will argue whether or not the earth is round.

You may disagree whether or not society should permit it. mY ancestors could not convince the ancient Babylonians, Greeks, or Romans. 3,000 years from now, someone will be arguing the same thing. I will not argue with that either and hope my circumcised descendants will not either.

However, I think this whole topic is wrong in this forum. This is supposed to be a forum to promote nudism. If we are going to have penis police inspecting for presence or lack of a foreskin, then it will be more difficult to get males to participate.



Walter

[vintagecarguy]

[QUOTE=walter05;233696]the 8th day.

If you outlaw that practice, you outlaw Judaism. I am obviously against that.

No,No.NO!I do NOT outlaw Judaism,just cutting kids.Many Jews no longer cut their kids.Human sacrifice is no longer allowed,cutting girls is no longer allowed in the USA.Jadaism WILL survive.

Your concept of individual rights and what you consider right and wrong should trump all. A faith that has survived for over 3,000 years should cease because of your concept of right and wrong.

Once again,Jadaism WILL survive.Not all of the practices that were done 3K years ago are done today.The way circumcision is carried out today is a FAR CRY from what was done then.Show me a 3K year old Gomco clamp!

Your comparison to a cult is insulting and ignorant.

I said if I,repeat,if I HAD A CULT,not a reference to Judaism.
Does being an ancient and noble religion absolve any faith from protecting children?
I'm sorry if you feel insulted,it was not my intent.I have Jewish friends whom I treasure,but that said I am insulted by the knife that sliced through my flesh over 41 years ago and MUST fight the injustice of slicing the healthy normal flesh of children.

The Ancient Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Inquistors, Nazis, etc. raised objections to the Jewish practice of circumcision. Some of them similar to yours. Your arguments are not new.

Being an ancient practice does not make it a good practice.Foot binding was an ancient practice.Female circumcision is an ancient practice.Honor killings,stoning of people for various reasons that now thousands of years later we do not stone people for.Killed anyone for not keeping the sabbath lately?




Over 3,000 years from now Jewish males circumcised on the 8th day of life will still be hearing those arguments.

If the world is a better place in three thousand years Jewish males circumcised on the 18 year of life will rejoice in their faith and their parents respect for their body integrity and thereby allow them to choose with full knowledge and consent to affirm their faith with the covenant.

[richo]

Maxnude;

There is a clear commandment in the scripture. Unless Jewish Law provides an exception, such as for a hemopheliac, all Jewish males are circumcised.

Any Jewish male who is not circumcised and does not have an exception provided in Jewish Law is considered cut off from the Jewish people. Once again, that is Biblical law.

Any parent who is circumcised and who knowingly chooses not to circumcise a son is also cut off.

If the operation part is done, but the religious requirements for blessings and declarations are not followed, the male and any parent is also cut off from the Jewish people according to the law. If it is corrected later, the individual can return.

Any non-Jewish male wishing to convert requires a circumcision. If the non-Jewish male is circumcised, the same correction as above is done.

That is the law from scripture through the Talmud to today.

People can make up what they want and call it what they want if they do something else, but under Jewish law, if males are not circumcised, they are cut off from the Jewish people. We may not like the law, but that is the law. Any one who says otherwise is incorrect.

You can hold your incorrect view of what Jewish law from the Bible to today holds. I will not argue that any more than I will argue whether or not the earth is round.

You may disagree whether or not society should permit it. mY ancestors could not convince the ancient Babylonians, Greeks, or Romans. 3,000 years from now, someone will be arguing the same thing. I will not argue with that either and hope my circumcised descendants will not either.

However, I think this whole topic is wrong in this forum. This is supposed to be a forum to promote nudism. If we are going to have penis police inspecting for presence or lack of a foreskin, then it will be more difficult to get males to participate.



Walter

Mutilation of a child shouldn't be allowable for any reason other than overwhelming medical need. Religious justification is just as irrational as Moonshadow's deciding that it looks better - neither forms the grounds for a permanent removal of any body part.

Would it make judaism illegal? No; it would make one practice illegal. Just as the law made the practice of polygamy illegal - and upset Mormons in the process. Just as the law states it is illegal to withhold medical care from a child because of religious practices - and there are numerous religions that impacts.

If you tried to circumcize an adult male without his consent, you would be found guilty of assault (and possibly battery) regardless of your religious beliefs - assault is assault, and my rights to my body overrule your rights to freedom of religion. In the classic statement, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. A child cannot legally give consent; therefore, circumcision of a child is by nature without consent and should be held to the same standard, regardless of the religion of the parents.

[MoonShadow]

Mutilation of a child shouldn't be allowable for any reason other than overwhelming medical need. Religious justification is just as irrational as Moonshadow's deciding that it looks better - neither forms the grounds for a permanent removal of any body part.



Correction, please. I said that the circumsized penis looks better and feels better but did not say it was justification for circumcision.

[vintagecarguy]

Correction, please. I said that the circumsized penis looks better and feels better but did not say it was justification for circumcision.

Thank you for the clarification MoonShadow.
I respect the opinion that one can prefer an altered genitalia without viewing that preference as a justification for the practice.

[MoonShadow]

:eatpopcorn:


LOL --- LOL --- pass the box please!

[walter05]

All of you who say that outlawing circumcision of babies on the 8th day does not not outlaw Judaism are simply incorrect.

Judaism has based on the concept that there are commandments Divinely provided in the Torah that must be followed. This is one of those commandments.

If you outlaw a commandment, you outlaw the faith. That is a simple fact.

You may say otherwise, but you are incorrect.

I will not argue with people who say the world is flat because that is false.

I will also not argue with people who state what is and is not necessary for Judaism. What is commonly called Orthodox Judaism today requires circumcision on the 8th day of life. If the practices is outlawed, Orthodox Judaism and Orthodox Jews are outlawed. That is a fact.

Most conservative Jews also hold to that as a core belief. They would also be outlawed.

Most reformed Jews believe that also.

Outlaw circumcision on the 8th day, and the overwhelming number of Jews will have to leave to continue to be Jewish. That is a fact.

[MoonShadow]

Walter, why should Judaism be so rigid?

Eliminating a ritual such as circumsizing should not end Judaism at all.

I understand how ancient books are written but you have to allow for the passage of time. I truly cannot understand how something like a physical ritual perform on a baby boy could eliminate Judaism when there is and are so many other facets to the religion.

I am not being argumentative but need to understand how an act, a physical act such as circumcision can ruin, eliminate, abolish a religion.

[walter05]

Moonshadow;

A fundamental belief of Orthodox Judaism is that the Torah and commandments we have today are the same ones as given at Mount Sinai.

The belief is that the commandments are unchangable.

Many of the commandments are in the category of a "Choke" which means we don't understand them and still follow them.

It is simple. Orthodox Jews believe that our creator and master of the universe gave some commandments and they are obligated to follow them.

Orthodox Jews do not accept the idea of eliminating or changing any of them. You are correct that it is rigid in this concept.

However, it is interesting to note that Pharoahs, emperors, and kings built great monuments to themselves. Today, those great men are unknown.

Jewish prophets and scholars wrote books and passed down beliefs. Today there are still millions who study them every day.

In the face of thousands of years of persecution and dispersal, this rigidness has enabled Judaism to survive.

Your question is a good one. I understand it as attempting to understand and not just confront and destroy.

[richo]

Moonshadow;

A fundamental belief of Orthodox Judaism is that the Torah and commandments we have today are the same ones as given at Mount Sinai.

The belief is that the commandments are unchangable.

Many of the commandments are in the category of a "Choke" which means we don't understand them and still follow them.

It is simple. Orthodox Jews believe that our creator and master of the universe gave some commandments and they are obligated to follow them.

Orthodox Jews do not accept the idea of eliminating or changing any of them. You are correct that it is rigid in this concept.

However, it is interesting to note that Pharoahs, emperors, and kings built great monuments to themselves. Today, those great men are unknown.

Jewish prophets and scholars wrote books and passed down beliefs. Today there are still millions who study them every day.

In the face of thousands of years of persecution and dispersal, this rigidness has enabled Judaism to survive.

Your question is a good one. I understand it as attempting to understand and not just confront and destroy.

We're definately gettting further off-topic here, but I'll just say that society makes laws without regard to religion (that's what the separation of church and state means: laws cannot endorse or persecute any religion over any other). If society determines a practice to be unethical and, thus, outlaws it, it does so regardless of whether it is a religious practice or not. Again, the withholding of medical care for children is an extremely relevant example: the "sanctity of the human body" is paramount in some religions, but society as a whole has determined that the health and well-being of a child should not be subjected to religious belief. This doesn't mean those religions are outlaws or "persecuted", nor does it violate church and state - indeed, if an exception were made for those religions, it would be a church/state violation, because said religion would be favored over others or over the nonreligious.

The state is gradually adopting the principle that parents do not always operate in the best interests of their children. The rights of parents to do anything they like to their children have been heavily challenged in recent times, and I expect infant male circumcision to become one of those challenges.

[MoonShadow]

We're definately gettting further off-topic here, but I'll just say that society makes laws without regard to religion (that's what the separation of church and state means: laws cannot endorse or persecute any religion over any other). If society determines a practice to be unethical and, thus, outlaws it, it does so regardless of whether it is a religious practice or not. Again, the withholding of medical care for children is an extremely relevant example: the "sanctity of the human body" is paramount in some religions, but society as a whole has determined that the health and well-being of a child should not be subjected to religious belief. This doesn't mean those religions are outlaws or "persecuted", nor does it violate church and state - indeed, if an exception were made for those religions, it would be a church/state violation, because said religion would be favored over others or over the nonreligious.

The state is gradually adopting the principle that parents do not always operate in the best interests of their children. The rights of parents to do anything they like to their children have been heavily challenged in recent times, and I expect infant male circumcision to become one of those challenges.

Good post, richo!

Your last paragraph is spot on. Too often, parents DO NOT act/behave/think/operate in the best interests of their children. We read about such stories, some of us even know such parents, and the caseloads that social workers have with such parents is amazing in size and scope. People or parents may disagree with any outside interference but it has to occur when children are put in the middle, abused, neglected, or abandoned due to parental behaviors and actions.

However, religions can be very rigid and trying to change certain practices takes generations of congregations to change certain practices. If male circumsions become something the majority of people frown upon or disapprove of, such practice will cease. Again, it will take a societal effort to do so. It is possible.

[walter05]

Richo;

"The state is gradually adopting the principle that parents do not always operate in the best interests of their children. The rights of parents to do anything they like to their children have been heavily challenged in recent times"

I hope you are wrong about that. If so, we are on the way to a totalitarian state.

There is the basic concept in the US. that where the the life of a child is threatened, the state can exercise its police powers to protect children. If parents refuse life saving medical care, this would be the case.

If a state determines that having naked children at a resort with naked adults puts the child at risk, and the state then provides proof of a compelling evidence to support that reason, then the state has the authority to oulaw the children at nudist resorts. Children on nude photography fall into the same category.

At this time, there are strong arguments for and against circumcision. The American Academy of Pediatrics states in its policy statment: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided."

The statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics is reasonable. There is no scientific concensus that circumcision of infants should not be done. To simply tell parents, that despite over 3,700 years of religious practice and a belief in a divine commandment to perform circumcision, when there is no scientific concensus to end the practice is unreasonable. The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution would block such a move, and without the compelling evidence, the state can't exercise its authority to interfere with this practice.

For over 3,700 years opposition to Jewish circumcision by some born Jewish and some not born Jewish has existed. At the times of the Greek, Roman, and Byzantine empires, as well as under feudal Christian Europe, the vast majority of men were not circumcised and the majority believed the practice would die out over time. It has not and I believe will not.

[MoonShadow]

The statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics is reasonable. There is no scientific concensus that circumcision of infants should not be done. To simply tell parents, that despite over 3,700 years of religious practice and a belief in a divine commandment to perform circumcision, when there is no scientific concensus to end the practice is unreasonable. The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution would block such a move, and without the compelling evidence, the state can't exercise its authority to interfere with this practice.

For over 3,700 years opposition to Jewish circumcision by some born Jewish and some not born Jewish has existed. At the times of the Greek, Roman, and Byzantine empires, as well as under feudal Christian Europe, the vast majority of men were not circumcised and the majority believed the practice would die out over time. It has not and I believe will not.

You are correct in that the state could not tell parents not to circumize their baby boys. I understand the many centuries where it has been practice by the Jewish religion but over time and with changes in customs and people's attitudes, it can change; not saying that it will but as people evolve as societies, cultural behaviors do change. Societies need flexibility to make changes rather than be rigid and hard-lined. If societies were to not make changes, we would be in for a lot of negative behaviors from our masses (as we have today). Change is good for the most part, not always please note but change is the one constant we have among our species and it is not always a bad thing.

I believe whether to circumsize or not is truly up to the parents and as others have stated it is about choices.

[NakedGary]

Walter05

You made a statement that all Jew's were circumcised on the 8th day.

That statement was challenged with:
By Walter05
Quote:
Since then, all Jewish males following the commandments as set down by Moses have been circumcised on the 8th day.
Not true Walter, there is a growing movement of Jews not circumcising male infants on the 8th day.

A unscientific survey conducted recently by MAMY, an Israeli parenting Web site, found that 3.2 percent of Israeli Jews no longer circumcise.

It's hard to know how many Jews are giving up the practice, as statistics are not broken down by religion.

http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish3.html

This thread subject is 4 years old with 85 pages numbering 1,700 posts. The thread is not going away but its not a religious category or forum, and as "richo" say's:
Originally Posted by richo
We're definately gettting further off-topic here

If you want to continue on religon why don't you move over to the religious forum:

http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=49

[walter05]

Gary;

The original topic was are you circumcised. Some posters started to call for the outlaw of circumcision on those too young to consent. One of whom makes his living promoting reversal of circumcisions. I was responding to that question of whether it should be outlawed.

The fact that outlawing it would have the added effect of outlawing Orthodox Judaism was the issue I was raising.

I oppose outlawing or requiring it. I am in favor of parents making that decision themselves.

Walter

[baregreg]

LOL --- LOL --- pass the box please!
:)
Not sure how you like your popcorn, but I put some melted butter and some Parmesan cheese on it. Try it sometime sprinked with a bit of Parmesan cheese. :chef::eat::eatpopcorn::eat:

[listen2me222009]

It is funny what you get used to. I am circumsized and I cannot picture being any other way. I kind of think I would look funny, but once again it's what you are used to.

[azgreen]

Walter05 said, "I oppose outlawing or requiring it. I am in favor of parents making that decision themselves."

Well, many, many of us are in favor of the owners of the foreskins making that decision themselves like any other important issues for self-determination and soveighnty of their bodies. It is fundamental and universal.

[TLCTugger]

There is a clear commandment in the scripture.

A very clear commandment which came hundreds of years after Abraham is THOU SHALL NOT STEAL. It is certainly stealing if you take healthy normal body parts without informed consent.

Unless Jewish Law provides an exception, such as for a hemopheliac, all Jewish males are circumcised.

Show me in Jewish law the exception to stoning adulterers and avoiding mentruating women. Times change, Jews change. The barbaric stuff has mostly been allowed to slip away. Why not change this one thing which happens to involve taking away someone's basic human right to keep their whole exquisite body?

As was pointed out, intactivists (opponents of infant circumcision) are about 20% - 30% Jewish in the US and UK even as the general population is only about 2% Jewish. By cutting a part off an infant's body, you are taking away his religious freedom to grow up and be the kind of Jew who thinks THOU SHALL NOT STEAL trumps all.

This is supposed to be a forum to promote nudism. If we are going to have penis police inspecting for presence or lack of a foreskin, then it will be more difficult to get males to participate.

I don't think anyone is advocating "foreskinned only" sections at the next picnic. We're talking about infants' rights. (I also didn't know there was a shortage of dudes lining up to gawk at nudists).

Muslims who believe female genital cutting is in the Hadith already have their right to "practice" that aspect of their religion infringed upon in 95% of population. People have been charged with criminal neglect if they only prayed for a child's health when what the child needed was actual expert medical attention. There are limits to what can be imposed in the name of religion.

But I think this topic is very relevant for naturists, who are in many cases seeking ways to glorify the splendor of natural creation. To me it starts with leaving a baby perfect.

-Ron

[TLCTugger]

There is no scientific concensus that circumcision of infants should not be done.

You site the AAP, which is wishy washy on the matter. If you were in Australia you might site the RACP, which says circumcision should never be performed before 6 months, and also says in boldface on its website: "There is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision." If we were in Canada or the UK, we'd be looking at medical policy statements strongly against circumcision. It is banned for boys under 16 on South Africa. It is banned in public hosptals in all but one Australian state.

No national medical association on earth endorses routine infant circumcision.

-Ron

[l2ltlarry]

MoonShadow's link in her post # 810 says, in part,

"...the U.S. Congress and a number of state legislatures have enacted statutes penalizing the practice and supporting the global movement to abandon FGM.

"FGM violates the human rights of girls and women to non-discrimination, health and physical integrity. However, the question of how to prevent FGM in the U.S. is a complex one.
This briefing paper summarizes the legislative approaches taken by the U.S. federal government and the 16 states that have adopted legal measures specifically targeting FGM. Most FGM statutes in the U.S. were enacted between 1996 and 1999.

"As of October 2000, no court cases involving any of these new statutes have been reported as published court decisions.
While the prevalence of FGM in the U.S. is not fully known, it is essential that efforts to prevent its practice include culturally sensitive education and outreach to the relevant communities. The deeply ingrained cultural attitudes underlying FGM cannot be changed simply by outlawing the practice."


One -- As "The deeply ingrained cultural attitudes underlying FGM cannot be changed simply by outlawing the practice", I think male circumcision will be even harder to outlaw, ban, or prohibit.

Two -- I read a statement recently by a lower class Chinese man which probably applies to circumcision bans as well as all the other laws that people at the top make. He said, "When the leaders at the top make a rule, the rest of us try to find ways to get around it."

Three -- There are laws against speeding all over the U.S. and very few of us drive without breaking these laws.

Some people, I think, have way too much confidence in rules and regulations, and laws and orders.

And again, female clitoridectomy is the same as male penectomy, not circumcision

[walter05]

TLC;

Gary made a good point. IF you want to go into a full blown religious discussion, this thread may not be the place. You can open a new one.

Moonshadow asked questions for attempting to develop an understanding.

You simply accuse and accuse.

There are topics I choose not to discuss with Stu because his answers are predictable and will not change.

This is a topic I will not discuss with those of you that simple accuse and will not change.

If you want a religious topic, open it in the appropriate section, raise good questions, and I will be willing to answer you.

Walter

[Sanslines]

TLC;

If you want a religious topic, open it in the appropriate section, raise good questions, and I will be willing to answer you.

Walter


Everyone has their own opinions and will hold steadfastly to their own position. No one is going to change their opinion. The best that you can hope for is to present your opinions, back them up with your own factual information, and then leave it at that.

If I want to discuss Judaism, I prefer to discuss it with open minded students and an open minded rabbi. In such an environment, no question is out of bounds, everyone listens to each other, and will not be offended if someone challeges the official religious 'dogma'. This is what young people do. They question their religious beliefs in a healthy environment that does not shove official dogma down their throats. An on line forum is not the appropriate place to discuss such matters. Everyone believes that they are right, some are not willing or able to even attempt to challege their own beliefs, and nothing of value is ever accomplished.

[TLCTugger]

IF you want to go into a full blown religious discussion, this thread may not be the place.

Of course I don't want a religious discussion. You keep mentioning religious rights, and I keep pointing out that the federal government abridges religious "freedoms" when the health of a minor is involved.

You keep mentioning religious neccessity, and I'm just trying to point out that there are people even within a religion that disagree about whether it's a necessity.

Eli Ungar-Sargon is an orthodox Jew. He has made a film about how scripture tells him not to circumcise. http://CutTheFilm.com.

I don't care. I'm not religious, and I personally don't give religious arguments any credence at all. The infant hasn't adopted any creed.

-Ron

[TLCTugger]

male circumcision will be even harder to outlaw, ban, or prohibit.

So don't try? People do get murdered even though that's a crime. So?

I say keep murder illegal. All in favor...?

female clitoridectomy is the same as male penectomy, not circumcision

But the laws in the US and most other places ban any sort of genital cutting to a female including a mere pin-poke to draw a ceremonial drop of blood from the clitoral hood. 94% of the world's women are covered by FGM laws.

The majority of FGMs that happen do not touch the clitoris. The average male circumcision is quite comparable to the typical FGM. I mean comparable in the same way that cutting off a thumb with a bolt cutter would be comparable to cutting off an index finger with a cleaver. Yes, there are differences, but do we have to choose only one to oppose?

-Ron

[walter05]

TlCTugger;

In the U.S. the only way that the state can get involved in health matters for the child is if there is an overwhelming threat to the life or health of the baby. For instance, cancer saving treatment or to prevent disability.

The burden of proof is on the state to prove a need and not on the parents. Whether the parents are religious or atheist, that is the case.

If there is a family that prefers to be nudist in their home, and there are nude parents, girls, and boys, and the state objects, then the state would need to show an overwhelming reason to interfere even if someone files a complaint. Mere nudity does not give the state the right. Under the constitution, the state would not have the power to get involved.

An issue currently in the law is parents who smoke. Second hand smoke is hazardous to health. The question is whether or not the second hand smoke is such a serious risk to allow the states to intervene. So far, the law seems to indicate not. The burden of proof and the burden of the amount of evidence is too great.

One must be able to present convincing evidence that a practice or lack of a practice on the part of parents puts kids at risk. The state can only have the power to intervene under the most extreme circumstances. At this point the evidence on circumcision does not justify it either way.

You again raised a religious question. I accept Gary's criticism that this is not the place for and choose not to answer it. Please keep the religious aspects out.

Walter

[newddewd]

I am but wish I wasn't. Not much I can do about it now though...

[MoonShadow]

The majority of FGMs that happen do not touch the clitoris.
-Ron


Whoever told you this was wrong. Most do include removal of the clitoris.

[l2ltlarry]

Responding to TLCTugger post # 861 --

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by l2ltlarry
male circumcision will be even harder to outlaw, ban, or prohibit.

So don't try? People do get murdered even though that's a crime. So?

I say keep murder illegal. All in favor...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The difference is, there is widespread support for laws against murder. There are still a lot of murders, so obviously murderers don't care about the laws.

Speed limit laws don't enjoy the same support, so people routinely break those laws.

Laws against abortion don't have widespread public support, and I hope they never do. I'm pro-female.

Similarly, at this time, prohibiting male circumcision does not enjoy widespread public support, and I hope it never does. I know that's politically incorrect but that's what I believe.

[l2ltlarry]

From what I've read, societies were circumcising males long before religions existed and long before somebody said, "Oh, we're doing it for the medical benefits." Or "Let's do it to prevent masturbation."

Why would they have been doing it way back then?

I think the politically incorrect reason is many and probably most men enjoy having the head of their penis uncovered rather than covered up and hidden away. I think we always have and always will. Men of old figured out that the simple and easy solution to stay uncovered like they wanted was to cut off the foreskin.

I think many men who choose to be circumcised or enjoy being circumcised figure that what little sexual sensitivity may be lost is more than made up for by what many of us consider improved appearance.

So the very-long-time reason is cosmetic appearance. People who are politically correct would never admit to that. And because men liked the appearance for themselves, they wanted their baby boys to share the enhanced appearance.

I don't think laws are going to stop men from cutting their foreskins off, just as prohibition did not stop people from drinking alcohol.

I'm with Walter in thinking that circumcision abolitionists are going to have a fight on their hands in trying to criminalize circumcision. It's a fight I'm going to do everything I can to help them lose.

[l2ltlarry]

Much is made of the loss of sexual sensitivity after circumcision.

One post said

"Circumcised men suffer..."

"Circumcised men suffer..."

"Circumcised men suffer..."

And on and on. As if the overwhelming majority s u f f e r. I doubt it. I think the huge majority are very, very pleased with being that way.

I grew up uncircumcised. I did not see anyone who was circumcised until I was 10. It was 2 more years before I saw a second one at age 12. Immediately I decided I had to be that way myself. Simple reason, I liked the look far better than any of the numerous intact ones I had seen. Aren't I allowed to like the look? Aren't we allowed, who I think are the large majority?

I was married before I was circumcised, so I experienced sex with my wife with a foreskin. Those who make much out of how valuable "gliding in and out in your own foreskin" is for sensitivity are saying something I never experienced. It just irritated me (psychologically, not physically.) It was like having sex with myself.

After being circumcised at age 22, for me nothing was lost. I always thought it was much better.

For those whose circumcisions were truly botched, I understand that you would have been better off left as is. But I think the huge majority of circumcisions are not botched, and they work just fine in all ways for their owners.

[vintagecarguy]

I think you are dead on about a couple of things and dead wrong about a couple others.

many and probably most men enjoy having the head of their penis uncovered rather than covered up and hidden away.
Well some,but NO way near most...after all MOST of the worlds men are intact.But yes,some do like it.NOT a good excuse for cutting a baby.


I think many men who choose to be circumcised or enjoy being circumcised figure that what little sexual sensitivity may be lost is more than made up for by what many of us consider improved appearance.
Yup...you are once again correct....I agree with you.
I certainly defend the right of an ADULT man to have HIS OWN PENIS cut for whatever reason he has and wish him well.
I of course do NOT find my scarred,mangled,barely function pain inducing penis to be."improved appearance"nor do I find the MASSIVE loss of sexual pleasure I have suffered to be made up for by the GROTESQUE disfigurement of my penis.


So the very-long-time reason is cosmetic appearance.
Dead on again!Congrats!
Thats it!
It is a COSMETIC operation that should be just for ADULTS!
No boob jobs for 2 year old girls,no penis cutting for 2 year old boys!
After all,If I loved the look of a person without ears should I be allowed to hack the ears of my baby to ,"improve his appearance"?
NO WAY!
Adults...cut away,enjoy,peace out.
Babys...paws off!,and to docs...first do NO HARM!I'm harmed,that doesn't mean other men who are happy feel harmed but I sure am harmed and so are a lot of other men.We will not sit quietly by and hang our heads low and ignore this violation of basic human rights done to children.
Brave women have stood up and fought to end the cutting of girls for which the EXACT SAME EXCUSES have been used for both sexes and these women have had great success in exposing and stopping the violation of little girls.I support their efforts to end genital cutting for ALL children.

[TLCTugger]

the state can get involved in health matters for the child is if there is an overwhelming threat to the life or health of the baby.

The baby is at risk of having a healthy normal body part amputated. HELP ME, STATE!

Second hand smoke is hazardous to health.

Being without a body part falls under the definition of ill health. It is denial of "security of person" in the parlance of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

You again raised a religious question.

I must insist; you raised a religious question. I did not. Religion is irrelevant.

Cheers,
-Ron

[walter05]

TLC;

We have gotten to the crux of the question. In your opinion, male circumcision is this serious removal of a healthy body part.

There are millions of Jews, Muslims, and others who have practiced circumcision for years. The First amendment of the U.S. constitution grants the freedom of religion. It is for each person to determine his or her own religion, no one else or the government.

I raised the issue that out lawing the practice outlaws Orthodox Judaism. That is a fact. Therefore, in order to do so, there must be compelling evidence of the need to abridge someone's religious views. That evidence does not exist today.

Despite your emotional stance, the facts are that the question is an open one. In Africa today, there is an active program encouraging male circumcision. It appears to lessen the rate of AIDS for men and women. In the case of Africa, it is believed that millions of lives will be saved.

Parents in the U.S. may decide that due to the evidence that male circumcision may lower the risk of AIDS, cervical cancer in mates, cancer of the penis, etc. that the benefits out weigh any harm. That should be a reasonable decision for parents to make.

There is no clear information that would give the U.S. government or any American state government the right to interfere with the decision of parents whether to circumcise their sons or not.

I hope all parents make the decision after being fully informed. I trust private parents to make the right decision as to whether to have their sons circumcised or not.

In the meantime, all over the world there are billions of human penises. Some of them are circumcised and some are not. I expect that will be the case forever. No one should attempt to make circumcised or uncircumcised men feel inferior because of theit penises.

[Nude Hiker]

I was just talking with a guy from here on MSN, and he told me something that i found hard to believe i was hoping that you americans here could confirm if you think its true or not

The conversation came to circumsision.

Tell me is this true? DO you really mutilate your little baby boys like that, makes me cringe and i dont even have a penis to have it mutilated.

In South Africa most of the black boys are still getting circumsision. This is a common ritual which takes place in december . In one of the African states up North, the woman was mutilated like this, the clitoris was cut out. This law has now been abbonned. Good for the woman.

[Fitz1980]

Despite your emotional stance, the facts are that the question is an open one. In Africa today, there is an active program encouraging male circumcision. It appears to lessen the rate of AIDS for men and women. In the case of Africa, it is believed that millions of lives will be saved.

Parents in the U.S. may decide that due to the evidence that male circumcision may lower the risk of AIDS, cervical cancer in mates, cancer of the penis, etc. that the benefits out weigh any harm. That should be a reasonable decision for parents to make.


Given that in the USA we have HIGHER percentages of our population infected with AIDS than in ANY COUNTRY IN WESTERN EUROPE where circumcision is much less common I don't think that is a convincing argument for the first world. For the third world it is; but we don't live in the third world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_HIV/AIDS_adult_prevalence_rate


In the meantime, all over the world there are billions of human penises. Some of them are circumcised and some are not. I expect that will be the case forever. No one should attempt to make circumcised or uncircumcised men feel inferior because of theit penises.

I don't think that anyone is trying to make anyone feel inferior but frankly the only way that you end primitive practices that people hold onto for ceremonial reasons is to expose them for what they are. You don't see families that practice foot binding anymore in China. Here in the US you don't see corsets outside of very specific "dress up" occasions. You sure don't see people putting them on their little girls so that they will grow into a certan figure.

[walter05]

Just because a practice is old and you disagree with it does not make it primitive.

When white Christian settlers came to Africa, Australia, and the Americas, they considered a lot of old practices they disagreed with as primitive.

As a result, they exploited those with those practices and attempted to wipe them out.

Besides, why is it any of your business to wipe out primitive practices any way?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6176209.stm is one of the studies on the effect of male circumcision and AIDS transmission rates in Africa.

[tiger79]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6176209.stm is one of the studies on the effect of male circumcision and AIDS transmission rates in Africa.But, interestingly, the report you link to states "Dr Kevin De ****, director of the HIV/Aids department of the World Health Organization told the BBC the results were a 'significant scientific advance' but were not a magic bullet and would never replace existing prevention strategies."

[walter05]

Tiger97;

That is an important point. I am afraid that ultimately, circumcised men who think they are immune may practice more dangerous sexual practices.

Unlike some, I am not one that believes that all should or should not be circumcised.

The theory was provided that circumcision is an inexcusable removal of healthy body tissue. I wanted to pose evidence that it might be helpful.

The truth is I still think we should leave this to private individuals and parents to decide.

If someone wants to have a public information campaign to provide facts and/or opinion to discourage the practice, I am not opposed to that.

I am not in favor of the government either prohibiting or requiring circumcision.

Walter

[azgreen]

What seems to keep being overlooked here is the universal human right to security in one's own person -- self-demination over one's body. That trumps religious beliefs. Religions can't sacrifice others to the gods because the potentially sacrificed persons have the universal right to live. Parents cannot morally perform all kinds of things on their children, like tattooing "I love Mom" on their children's chests or branding them or cutting the labia and clitoris from their daughters. Cruel is cruel.
Why is this concept so hard to grasp? If you can actually believe that it is verboten and wrong to perform female genital mutilation and forever alter their private parts yet have no compunction about amputating the foreskin of a helpless, defenseles, nonconsening male child, then you are practicing pure hypocrisy. If circumcision was so desirable for males, why are 80 percent of the males in this world intact? It would be even higher if all males were given a choice. Your MUST regard individual choice for self-determination or you don't understand the fundamental issue of individual freedom. You seem to be preoccupied on the "freedom" of one person removed here -- the parent. The owner of the penis MUST have the only say.

[pault413]

I am circumsized and glad I am.

[walter05]

Azgreen;

I will not convince you and you will not convince me.

[Sanslines]

Circumcision is not universally accepted by ALL Jews.

".....Jewish men themselves are highly active in the anti-circumcisionmovement....Most people don't know it's not circumcision which confers upon one their Jewishness. While circumcising an infant son might arguably makea parent (not the child) a more observant Jew, Jewishness itself comes (except for converts) simply from having a Jewish mother. The circumcision most American Jewish males receive from a doctor doesn't satisfy religious requirements. Moreover, some Jews reject ancient practices that violate human rights andhave adopted more humane Bris ceremonies appropriate to both sexes.AlternativeBris Support Groups (http://www.fathermag.com/htmlmodules/circ/xbris.html) exist here in the United States.


Romans 2:25-28 The Jews and the Law


Religious Circumcision


Jews have been questioning circumcision for some time. The brit milah is supposed to be performed out of deep and abiding faith.

"We do not demonstrate our acceptance of the Covenant by following all of God’s commandments. We don’t keep kashrut, we don’t keep Shabbat. Brit milah is supposed to be a sacrosanct act of faith, the most important mitzvah (commandment). We don’t actively attempt to keep the other mitzvot...like most present day American Jews. If you explain [to your son] that he was circumcised because he is Jewish, he may feel that you are hypocrites if you do not live an Orthodox life." [Bivas]


Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law you become as though you had not been circumcised. If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they had been circumcised? The one who is not circumcised
physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you havethe written code and circumcision are a lawbreaker.

A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.

http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/religious.htm

There are very specific religious requirements for a circumcision to be 'valid'. If the circumcision is done by a doctor, then it is not valid unless that doctor is also a mohel.

http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/cycle/circumcision.htm

[walter05]

Sanslines;

I will not convince you and you will not convince me.

[walter05]

If someone wants to discuss this intelligently, just send me a PM.

All of us can read the Bible ourselves. The commandments are there for Jewish males and clear.

If someone accepts the Bible as the word of the all mighty, and that the all mighty has given us commands, there is nothing more to discuss.

Any one who starts off with what is in the Bible is not there can't be one I can discuss this with.

The earth is round and not flat. I will not discuss that issue either.

As far as I am concerned, the topic of what Orthodox Judaism believes and practices based on clear commands in the Bible is simple to see. If some one wants to pretend that the earth is flat or that is not the case, that is fine with me.

[baregreg]

Sanslines;

I will not convince you and you will not convince me.
That's something that you all should of realized many posts back. ;)

[Sanslines]

Sanslines;

I will not convince you and you will not convince me.

Walter,

You completely misunderstood my intention. The point for my posting is to demonstrate that there are different beliefs within Judaism. I am not trying to convince you of anything as I do understand the Orthodox traditions and respect your right to practice them as you see fit. Please understand that not everyone knows that there are many differences within Judaism. You know this......I know this......but so many others do not.

Please try to understand that it is not disrespectful or unhealthy for a younger person to question their beliefs. Your generation did not do this. Mine does.

[Centauri4]

My parents had me circumsized and I really feel as though I would have been a "larger" male if that had not been done! Do I regret that they made this choice for me? No, because what good would that do. If there were an operation to have skin grafted back onto my penis with an 80% chance of success, I might even consider that.

The reason I think this has impacted the size of my male appendage is it simply "feels" like it should be larger even when it is at it [present] largest size. So, if this feeling is accurate, then what my parents did to me in the name of hygiene or religious tradition amounts to an forced amputation! How can that be a good thing in ANY context?

~

[TLCTugger]

It is for each person to determine his or her own religion, no one else or the government.

And so the baby, being an individual with basic human rights, gets to choose his own religion. Many Muslims and even some Jews (and yes ORTHODOX Jews) do not think genital cutting is a religious requirement. By cutting the baby before you ask can him for an informed opinion, you abridge his religious freedom.

there must be compelling evidence of the need to abridge someone's religious views. That evidence does not exist today.

Nobody is telling anyone what to think. Only what harm they can't inflict on another person. I say the baby's rights are the only question to be raised, but regardless, with the number of deaths and 100% unpredictable outcomes, the evidence absolutely exists today to end the unnecessary harm to infants.

In Africa today, there is an active program encouraging male circumcision. It appears to lessen the rate of AIDS for men and women. In the case of Africa, it is believed that millions of lives will be saved.

You would be dead wrong about that. It has already been shown by the same Africa researchers that the men they cricumcised were 50% more likely to transmit the AIDS virus to their partners. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8154134.stm Plenty of Africans are skeptical and even resentful of the misguided US-led inititaive to cut.

Parents in the U.S. may decide that due to the evidence that male circumcision may lower the risk of AIDS, cervical cancer in mates, cancer of the penis, etc. that the benefits outweigh any harm.

The US medical associations explicitly state that the possible benefits DO NOT outweigh the known risks and harms. None of those affliction effects you mention - even if they were true - affect the infant before he can make his own choice. Any ethicist will tell you that proxy consent for surgery is only warranted in an emrgency when one must assume on behalf of an incompetent person that s/he would prefer to continue living, with all their parts intact if possible.

There is no clear information that would give the U.S. government or any American state government the right to interfere with the decision of parents whether to circumcise their sons or not.

There is clear information that would give the U.S. government or any American state government the right to interfere with the decision of parents whether to circumcise their sons or not.

See how easy that is to say. Except it's true when I say. Loss of a body part is grave step to be pursued only after less invasive remedies have been exhausted. Babies circumcised don't even get the benefit of a diagnosis of defect or pathology to attempt to justify the amputation. IT'S COSMETIC.

I trust private parents to make the right decision as to whether to have their sons circumcised or not.

You can't even trust their doctor to tell them about about the pros and cons, how can lay people be qualified to direct medical treatment, and why should they be allowed to do so for someone who is not sick when the decision could just as easily wait until the patient can weigh in?

In the meantime, all over the world there are billions of human penises. Some of them are circumcised and some are not.

85% are intact, only 15% are mutilated.

No one should attempt to make circumcised or uncircumcised men feel inferior because of theit penises.

Intact is BETTER. Just like not having female genitals cut is BETTER. Silly superstitious barbarism is not usually hard to spot. Having all your teeth is BETTER, which is why we don't let those New Guinnea people come to the US and practice that knock-the-front-teeth-out-so-you-can-fit-a-plate-in-the-lip trick on their kids.

That doesn't mean anyone has a right to judge a person altered in childhood as inferior. He didn't choose it. Who would even suggest such a thing?

For the rare person who decides intact is not better for him, I applaud his right to decide as a competent adult. About 2 in 1000 intact adult males choose to get circumcised.

[TLCTugger]

So the very-long-time reason is cosmetic appearance. People who are politically correct would never admit to that.

I'm sure that applies in many cases just like massive dangly ear piercings and lip-stretching plates are cosmetic.

I appreciate you thinking about this, but people who have actually researched it with indigenous cultures have found evidence that among the oldest reasons for genital cutting is indeed superstitious. They believe the tip of the male prepuce looks like a female orifice, and they believe the clitoris looks like a mini phallus. They believe that unless these are surgically corrected the child is at risk of growing into a middle-sexed condition and being infertile.

[TLCTugger]

>> "Circumcised men suffer..." << -Ron

I think the huge majority are very, very pleased with being that way.

I think the majority have no idea what they're missing. That doesn't mean they haven't lost half their sensual pleasure-receptive nerve endings. They have.

[TLCTugger]

I really feel as though I would have been a "larger" male if that had not been done!

Of course you would have been larger. With each withdrawal of a penis from a vagina, the normal mobile skin can envelop the glans, increasing the perceived girth. The diameter of the glans increases by 4 skin thicknesses (since the sleeve of skin rolls over on itself, there is an inner and outer sheath on each side).

Also, many males are cut so tightly that the full normal size of an erection is never attained. The erection may also be crooked. Some men who non-surgically restore their foreskins find the length of the the erect state increases as the new slack skin allows for a full erection.

Google "circumcision damage" to see images of adults who been severely affected like this.

[walter05]

Sanslines;

I appreciate your clarification.

Every one;

I agree with the principal of each person ultimately having the final authority over their bodies. I remember seeing a 2 year old boy who had tattoos and I was offended. I thought imposing them on him was unfair.

I understand the concept that having a parent decide to remove the infant's foreskin without his concent is an even bigger decision. My inclination would be to agree with that position that says this is not permitted without the parent's permission.

However, there are those of us who believe that there is a creator and master of the universe. That creator and master of the universe gave us scriptures with commands. We believe that those commands over rule our own inclinations.

For those of you who believe that all religion is mythology and that there are no divinely provided scripture, I am stating a position based on what you would consider a superstition. If you can't hold on to your belief and at the same time concede the possibilty that we could be right, then you have a missionary position. You must convert us.

For the parents that do not believe that there is a religious commandment to circumcise, it is not such a simple issue either. I merely point out there are valid reasons to do so.

I will admit that if I did not believe that Jews are commanded to circumcise our sons on the eigth day, I would not do so. This is not because I believe there are no benefits. It is because I am convinced that hygiene and careful behavior are the best protections. Relying on a partial level of protection that probably does exist leads to more dangerous behaviors and higher risk than if there was no circumcision at all.

However, if a non-Jewish parent wants to circumcise their son because they are convinced that there are health benefits or for any other reason, I agree with the AAP that since the evidence is conflicting, I will trust them to make that decision.

Centauri's post points out what I am most concerned with. There have been several posts from circumcised men who are very happy with their circumcised penises.

There has been a major effort to attempt to convince men that if they are circumcised, there is something wrong with their penises. This has created an industry where people are making money attempting to restore the foreskins. I put them in the same category with those who do hair restorations and plastic surgery for looks.

Nudism is about body acceptance. When I went to Valley View, I walked around bald headed with my naked circumcised penis. There was another bald headed man who walked around with an uncircumcised penis. Neither one of us made an attempt to make the other feel bad. That is the way it should be.

[MoonShadow]

>> "Circumcised men suffer..." << -Ron



I think the majority have no idea what they're missing. That doesn't mean they haven't lost half their sensual pleasure-receptive nerve endings. They have.


Okayyy --- you don't miss what you don't have. To keep telling circumsized men they are missing out, they suffer, they have lost half their pleasure doesn't do any good because they have no idea what they are missing so what you are saying makes no difference; except, as Walter, says to build your profits on your stretchie cups.

[bareacres]

So what are we saying that this is an amputation (my little hood has been cut off) and what you really want is a HANDICAP plate for your car because you don't want to walk too far through the parking lot at the store because it might hurt "little willie" if he wiggles too much and gets a little trouser burn.

Jezz people, Does it REALLY matter and WHO REALLY cares??!!??!!

[vintagecarguy]

So what are we saying that this is an amputation (my little hood has been cut off) and what you really want is a HANDICAP plate for your car because you don't want to walk too far through the parking lot at the store because it might hurt "little willie" if he wiggles too much and gets a little trouser burn.

Jezz people, Does it REALLY matter and WHO REALLY cares??!!??!!

I don't want pitty,or a parking space,or YOUR RIDICULE!
Read what has been written and you will know who cares and why...or just go on using ridicule...don't bother learning anything new,or perhaps uncomfortable.
.
.

"Jezz people,It REALLY matters and I REALLY care!
.
.
and so do many other people or this thread wouldn't be so long.
...
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS ,OH RIDICULE MASTER?!?
QUIT CUTTING BABIES!
It's a violation of a childs basic human rights-simple as that.

[azgreen]

Those who seek to defend circumcision and perpetuate generation after generation of cutting helpless baby boys should recognize they are in either the first or the second stages in how social change takes place. It's self-evident.
The first stage of change is ridicule, the second is violent opposition, the third is wide-spread acceptance. It happened with such things as racial equality, ending smoking in public places, sexual harassment, women keeping their maiden names, etc. Like it or not, the public is growing to question and turn away from circumcision. Much of it is due to angry males who were circumcised against their will and have the courage to speak out with research and cries for sexual justice. I think the more we shame the medical community, the more we make medical health cost reformers and insurance companies recognize the waste of health dollars, the more we label circumcisioin cosmetic surgery, the more we talk about self-determination and body rights, the more we reach younger generations, the more we point out the great hypocrisy in religions that lamely defend it but have outlawed other biblical mandates as too harsh, then together we can say we are defeating this perverse, cruel practice.
Those on this thread that say they like having less penis and their glans hanging out to dry are only anecdotal, just like men who like having totally shaved heads. There absolutely is no movement by intact men to get cut. Nature put the foreskin there. It is a structure with functions. Until these defenders of a macabre pracice recognize individual human rights to be safe in one's own body from the wiles and peculiar practices of others, we must keep debunking their excuses until we reach that third stage of change, acceptance.

[clothesforgetaboutem]

i am not circumsized

[baregreg]

i am not circumsized
OK - :rolleyes:

[Running Bear]

OK - :rolleyes:
OK, nothing!; I itch every time you post from your avatar. Sorry for the OT comment :D

[baregreg]

OK, nothing!; I itch every time you post from your avatar. Sorry for the OT comment :D
Kinda like this :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFkZkcA9pmo

[Running Bear]

yup|:rotflmao:

[nakenone]

Its a fact that evolution of the human form will do away with the foreskin as well as body hair ,so cut smoothies are way ahead an much more intelligent,inquiry polls show that women by a large margin find cut smooth guys more sexy an manly.

[TLCTugger]

Its a fact that evolution of the human form will do away with the foreskin .

I wonder why you think that? Mammals' foreskins are about 65 million years old and going strong. Foreskin feels really good, protects the meatus from cooties, and makes intercourse plush, non-iritating, and fullfilling for a man's partner. When I had no slack skin, my wife loved having maybe 5 climaxes in a night, but then she'd need a week off to recover from being rubbed raw. Now we can bone daily.
polls show that women by a large margin find cut smooth guys more sexy an manly.
Not generally. Most of the world enjoys intact genitals. People come to prefer what they're used to. It doesn't take long to get used the awesome way slinky slack feels during sex.

-Ron

[JoseO42]

Circumcision is done for a variety of reasons. I am not sure the percentages in the US but it is a fairly common procedure. I am Catholic and my parents did not circumcise me for which I am glad. Little boys should be allowed to make that decision on their own when they are old enough and not have it forced on them. I guess the only exception would be in Jewish families since this is an agreement between God and Jewish people.

[baregreg]

91 pages on this topic. :bonk:

[walter05]

Jose042;

You seem to have a thought out position. Since you have already provided for an exception for religious requirement, I want to pose a question only to you and hope others do not drown you out.

Do you want the government involved in regulating infant circumcision?

Should the government mandate circumcision or not?

Should the government tell parents what they can and can't do in regards to circumcision?

Suppose there is a family with a history of adult phimosis, or there were two other infant brothers that had repeated painful urinary tract infections, would the parents be possibly justified in deciding to circumcise their infant son?

[JoseO42]

I do not think that the government should mandate who is or who is not required to get a circumcision. I understand that in those cases where there is a potential for the child's penis to become infected, then circumcision may be in the best interest of the child.

It really should be up to the family and their doctor / religious leader if a circumcision should be performed. Otherwise no one else should be making the decision for them.

[Someone28]

Centauri's post points out what I am most concerned with. There have been several posts from circumcised men who are very happy with their circumcised penises.

There has been a major effort to attempt to convince men that if they are circumcised, there is something wrong with their penises. This has created an industry where people are making money attempting to restore the foreskins. I put them in the same category with those who do hair restorations and plastic surgery for looks.

Nudism is about body acceptance. When I went to Valley View, I walked around bald headed with my naked circumcised penis. There was another bald headed man who walked around with an uncircumcised penis. Neither one of us made an attempt to make the other feel bad. That is the way it should be.

Aye, and it's a GOOD thing that such a market exists as well. It can only result in methods to get back what is lost in being improved and made safer gradually over time the more it grows in popularity. Of course snake oil and exploitation will emerge, but that happens with anything involving money due to none other than mere human greed. Did you know that you actually don't need to buy anything in order to restore? It's possible to use your bare hands alone. Well, that's only when you don't need to correct any circumcision botch first like a skin bridge... Which actually aren't AS uncommon as some people downplay and think. Same stuff with unwanted suture holes and all other manner of mess-ups. Restoring only works off of a natural reaction already built into the body triggered by tension of tissues... Restoring is something that happens with the help of nature (or god), not the other way around. Simply lovely how intricately nature (or god) designed every function of the body, isn't it? But that doesn't justify RIC. As it can't bring it all back, so to some degree, yes, we WILL have to "accept" this BS. The only "effort" that has been made so far is to INFORM (as that is actually sorely lacking as some doctors do have vested interests just like those other industries you condemn) prospective parents or people in general of the possible flaws and harms in what they are doing to their youth. It's your own prerogative whether you believe what is stated or not. Just as it's a reality that there are cut men who are happy with what they've got, there are also cut men who are equally unhappy with what they have and feel inferior to naturally intact males. Upon this realization, they may even go through a depressive phase. What do you do, then? Tell them to suck it up and get on with life? I wonder how you would feel concerning women who have lost a breast to something beyond their control seeking breast reconstruction. Are they vain? The level of ignorance to how this can and does sometimes make some suffer appalls me.

For these matters, (and more, but I don't want this to be too long winded) I think it is simply idiotic (I apologize if I offend you.) to lob such an industry in with the same group. You can't honestly believe that every man is going to want to live with the "choice" his parents dictated to him? (Actually, the same goes for Jewish sons who, when and if they grow up to adopt such a standpoint, want to renounce Judaism and the cut. I've heard of a few such cases, rare as they may be. But I don't want to get into religion here.) I'm speaking from personal experience here, I'm cut and I dislike the fact. I heard that I was born perfectly healthy in every which way, and my parents do not follow any faith that requires it, but for some inane reason they chose to cut me at birth regardless. I don't understand why, it just doesn't make any sense to me. I have done the research both ways, and I honestly believe that those against make a lot of better points. Some extremely minor reductions in some rare to begin with diseases, some he is not even going to be exposed to as an infant, at the price of invading his own perfectly valid human right to choose? Or other flimsy reasons such as "tradition", which should be questioned every now and again to start with. I completely respect those few rare cases where there is a genuine medical problem and it should be carried out, but understand that most often this is not the case. (And like mentioned above, doctors do have reasons to suggest it and not speak out about it. They get profit after all.) What is the point then? There is none. It's essentially cosmetic surgery JUST like certain plastic surgery. On an infant? Think of it from that vantage point, it quickly sounds disgusting.

It just vexes me thoroughly as to why people still continue to do this. I will never quite understand it. Myself personally, (I'm not gay by any means, simply unafraid to state the truth.) I like the look of an "Au Natural" man, in ALL his parts. And I am rather disappointed that I wasn't allowed to keep the look myself. As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That should be kept in mind whenever you hear opinionated nonsense such as this:

polls show that women by a large margin find cut smooth guys more sexy an manly.

The bottom line is that it is usually done to non-consenting infants... I believe there will come a time when it is restricted by law to do it to boys anymore unless there is DIRE, actually justified need. Unlike the majority of today... Just as ANY modification of a girl whatsoever is also banned by law. To allow such a state to persist is a gaping double standard just asking to be criticized. You can't have equality like this.

91 pages on this topic.

Probably gonna keep on growing, too. This is a VERY controversial topic. :eek:

EDIT: Another point... I suppose it is true that you can't know what you're missing out on, but you know something? That only just angers me. It is a rather bitter, and cold comfort. Those sentiments do not work for everyone. I resent having a mystery imposed on my life that would have otherwise not been there. I am a very inquisitive sort, and like to know these things. But when you're deliberately handicapped in that mental area...

[Sanslines]

I do not think that the government should mandate who is or who is not required to get a circumcision. I understand that in those cases where there is a potential for the child's penis to become infected, then circumcision may be in the best interest of the child.

It really should be up to the family and their doctor / religious leader if a circumcision should be performed. Otherwise no one else should be making the decision for them.

There are two very important aspects of this issue that need to be fully understood. One concerns the medical aspects of circumcision. The other aspect concerns the faith based aspect of circumcision. Certain religious faiths consider circumcision to be a vitally important aspect that is not subject to negotiation. The serious and dedicated faith believer can not personally pick and chose which aspects of his or her faith that he or she will follow and those that he or she will not. The only individuals who can make such determinations and modify requirements to the faith are the upper echelon faith leaders who have the knowledge, experience, trust, and credibility to do so.

Governments should not become involved in making mandates that specify what is legally allowed or not allowed (as such mandates pertain to religion) unless there is are clear and unambiguous medically based reasons for doing so ie saving lives.

Instead of making simplistic statements about allowing or banning circumscision as it pertains to religious faiths, perhaps it would be better to study certain aspects of such religions first to gain understanding and proper context for such beliefs. It may then become clear that demanding that certain religions be banned from performing circumcision is tantamout to banning one of the most sacred aspects of that religion and hence outlawing such religion. Such indepth studies of certain religions will also bring to light that the leaders of those religions have made exceptions for certain sacred beliefs based upon necessity to saves lives. For example, in Orthodox Judaism, Shabbat is a sacred observation with a list of very specific prohibited activities (while Shabbat is observed). Yet Rabbinic Judaism has allowed for exceptions to rigid adherence of those activities when life is at stake ie when a medical doctor witnesses a dying patient and must violate one or more of the prohibited activites in order to save that life. As a parallel, the Rabbinic leaders have very carefully considered and weighed the sacredness and necessity of circumcision to uphold a very core belief of the faith versus the medical and health aspects and have come to the best decisions possible based upon all important aspects of circumcision. Such decisions are not easy and do involve a great deal of very deep and careful introspection.

[Someone28]

I never wanted to mention religion, but...

Certain religious faiths consider circumcision to be a vitally important aspect that is not subject to negotiation.

I can only hope then that for the sake of those unintentionally victimized by such things in the system of religious freedom, their freedom in wanting to reverse the damages done is well respected and widely recognized. :(

[azgreen]

UPI reported Saturday that two out of three Swedish physicians refused to perform circumcisions. We know that Scandinavian medicine ranks very high in all the indices for smart medical care. Here's the link:

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2009/07/25/Many-Swedish-doctors-oppose-circumcision/UPI-87341248545759/

[richo]

Governments should not become involved in making mandates that specify what is legally allowed or not allowed (as such mandates pertain to religion) unless there is are clear and unambiguous medically based reasons for doing so ie saving lives.

I understand the principle of what you're saying, but the government is obligated to protect the rights of *all* its citizens, not just those who have reached an age of consent. What you do as a religious practice to yourself is your business; what you force upon individuals who can't give consent is not.

Circumcision *is* mutilation, regardless of the intent of the person having it done. When a person is old enough to consent, fine, let them do it - but it should not be forced on a child for any reason.

You cannot cut off your child's fingertips, earlobes, or anything else for any reason short of immediate medical necessity without facing court action for child abuse and possibly jail time as well as loss of the custody of your children. You should not be able to cut off the tip of your child's penis either.

[Sanslines]

I never wanted to mention religion, but...



I can only hope then that for the sake of those unintentionally victimized by such things in the system of religious freedom, their freedom in wanting to reverse the damages done is well respected and widely recognized. :(

Religion is an extremely important aspect of this topic and it is necessary for us to discuss it in order to understand the importance of religion.

Religiously devout people of all faiths follow their leaders without question. The responsibility of devout people is certainly to question their beliefs but they are not free to follow whichever belief suits them and not follow whichever belief does not. Those who do this are not devout people but are partial believers.

As another example, consider Catholicism for a minute. As a questioning Catholic with serious concerns about human overpopulation on this planet, you may go to your priest and discuss your concerns about human overpopulation and your use of birth control to prevent your contribution to this serious problem. Even if the priest understood and agreed with everything that you said, he is not able to officially agree with your use of birth control. Such use violates one of the basic beliefs or principles of Catholicism against the use of birth control (as it is considered an assault against human life) as clarified by the supreme leader ie the Pope. Only those at the highest levels of the church hierarchy can change official church policy against the use of birth control.

There certainly is compelling evidence that human overpopulation creates a myriad of suffering and problems on this planet. yet the chruch weighs the arguments for birth control versus the basic religious belief against birth control and has ruled that church beliefs are not subject to the whims of man. The church will not budge even in spite of clear evidence that such beliefs will eventually lead to the extinction of mankind on this planet.

Such is the case with circumcision. The rulings for circumcisino in some faiths can not be changed for they would change one of the basic beliefs within those religions and start down the road of voiding one belief after another until there is nothing much left to believe within those religions. Faith works in mysterious ways.

[Sanslines]

I understand the principle of what you're saying, but the government is obligated to protect the rights of *all* its citizens, not just those who have reached an age of consent. What you do as a religious practice to yourself is your business; what you force upon individuals who can't give consent is not.

Circumcision *is* mutilation, regardless of the intent of the person having it done. When a person is old enough to consent, fine, let them do it - but it should not be forced on a child for any reason.

You cannot cut off your child's fingertips, earlobes, or anything else for any reason short of immediate medical necessity without facing court action for child abuse and possibly jail time as well as loss of the custody of your children. You should not be able to cut off the tip of your child's penis either.

Your argument is going to go up against very strong religions beliefs. Even if you convince others to the point where they question what they are doing, they will not be able to comply for doing so would effectively end their beliefs in their faith.

Change is possible within faiths but it is not easy task. Faiths can never be changed for the whims of man. Many challenges to the faith must undergo a very rigorous process and justifications to allow changes must generally be found. In some cases, beliefs are subject to different interpretations and chaneg can be found in establishing another interpretation. In other cases, the religious commandments are very clear and therefore change can not be made based upon change in interpretation. As an example of both, in Orthodox Judaism, circumcision is a very clear commandment that is not subject to interpretation. Modern day beliefs about the prohibited activities of Shabbat are derived from exegentic means, which means that the exact wording of the prohibited activities has been interpreted as they pertain to modern day activities that did not exist in the days when Shabbat was originally established. Such interpretations have led to a variety of understandings and followings with Judaism.

[richo]

Your argument is going to go up against very strong religions beliefs. Even if you convince others to the point where they question what they are doing, they will not be able to comply for doing so would effectively end their beliefs in their faith.

I don't think you're quite understanding - religion has nothing to do with this. You are not allowed to use religion as an excuse to violate individual human rights.

Anyone who thinks that an adult's faith is just as important as the physical integrity of a separate human being has serious moral issues he or she needs to review; luckily, in most cases, our government and our society don't agree with such violations.

This is the only major exception to that ethic, and it is one that should be removed. Judging by the growing "debate" on the issue, circumcision is starting to be viewed as the violation of human rights that it is.

Again, this has nothing to do with religion - religion can't justify theft, murder, extortion, or any other act that harms a third party; they're looked at as "wrong" and are made illegal. Why should it be allowed to justify this one?

[walter05]

Someone28;

You said, "I heard that I was born perfectly healthy in every which way, and my parents do not follow any faith that requires it, but for some inane reason they chose to cut me at birth regardless."

I have a few simple questions.

1) Have you asked your parents why they had you circumcised? (It may be that the reasons would make sense to you. Even if you disagree with them, it could help to know why.)

2) Human knowledge and understanding are constantly evolving. I had my tonsils taken out when I was 5. Today they would not take them out for that reason. I don't blame my parents or the doctor. They made the best decision they could based on the information available at the time. Can you accept that they made the best decision they could based on the information available to them at the time?

3) Who told you there is something wrong with your circumcised penis?

4) You seem like an angry person who is angry at his parents. Are they still married or are they divorced?

5) Are there other reasons you are angry at your parents?

[Sanslines]

I don't think you're quite understanding - religion has nothing to do with this. You are not allowed to use religion as an excuse to violate individual human rights.

Anyone who thinks that an adult's faith is just as important as the physical integrity of a separate human being has serious moral issues he or she needs to review; luckily, in most cases, our government and our society don't agree with such violations.

This is the only major exception to that ethic, and it is one that should be removed. Judging by the growing "debate" on the issue, circumcision is starting to be viewed as the violation of human rights that it is.

Again, this has nothing to do with religion - religion can't justify theft, murder, extortion, or any other act that harms a third party; they're looked at as "wrong" and are made illegal. Why should it be allowed to justify this one?

The basis for circumcision in the Jewish faith is this:



God further said... At the age of eight days, every male among you
throughout the generations shall be circumcised. (Genesis 17:12-13)



Religious beliefs and understandings form the basis for circumcision. There is a tremendous controversy within Judaism concerning circumcision. The issue of circumcision is being explored within the context of the Jewish faith. Instead of stating that religion has nothing to do with circumcision, please read some of the following links and then you will understand just how important and controversial that this issue has become.

http://www.noharmm.org/persreligion.htm

You should also consider that what you consider to be theft, others consider to be a sacred religious tradition. Everyone has their own opinions concerning this highly controversial issue. Hence the importance of a compromise solution.

[richo]

You should also consider that what you consider to be theft, others consider to be a sacred religious tradition. Everyone has their own opinions concerning this highly controversial issue. Hence the importance of a compromise solution.

The problem with this idea is that society makes theft illegal. If a religion promotes the practice of theft, they are still tried and convicted if they do so.

Society has decided, explicitly, that certain actions touted as (or justified by) religious beliefs count as child abuse. Some of these beliefs are of paramount importance within those religions. Parents who practice those beliefs are taken to court, tried, and (generally) convicted.

Let me try saying this again: society doesn't necessarily care about your religious beliefs when determining ethical standards. If you do something society determines to be unethical - such as arbitrarily amputating parts of a child's anatomy - society can and will hold you accountable.

At the moment, circumcision (and only male circumcision at that) of infants is the only exception to this rule. More and more people are realizing this, and more and more people are coming around to the idea that this is, in fact, mutilation without medical cause and constitutes child abuse. Society has determined that religious beliefs cannot justify child abuse. There can be no ethical compromise with such abuse.

If Judeo-Christian religions decide to modify their beliefs to adapt to society's ethics, that is their business, but it has no relevance to the subject other than to perhaps accelerate the process. Religion in and of itself has no role in this topic other than as a bystander: the impact on religious beliefs is an afterthought. The primary focus is on the rights of the child to his own body, a right that parents are infringing upon with this practice (whether religious or not).

Continued insistance that there can even be a discussion on the rights of an individual to make informed-consent decisions on his own body is, frankly, exasperating. Try discussing this topic, but change it to forced female circumcision (both culturally acceptable in some regions and religiously supported), and opinions turn 180 degress, but make it forced male circumcision and it's not only acceptable but expected. The hypocracy is stunning. Judaism is no more "sacrosanct" than any other religion, and its practices are no more ethical or moral simply because they have been around longer.

I apologize if I sound agitated - I am. But the idea that the religion of the parents supercedes the rights of the child is completely contrary to everything for which modern society, especially that within the U.S., stands. Many people seem to think that "rights" are only conferred to adults, but children have them too: as they cannot protect themselves, it is all the more imperative upon society to protect their rights, even when it means violating the beliefs of the parents.

There can be no compromise on fundamental human rights for anyone, else those rights have meaning for no one.

[l2ltlarry]

In the Friday July 24th USA Today newspaper on page A5, there is this headline "Abortion fight is 'enduring divide'".

The abortion issue and the circumcision issue are very much alike and becoming moreso as the circumcision opponents press their case.

The article says "Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor was asked whether she believed court rulings on abortion had ended the national controversy."

"Sotomayor gave a blunt, one-word answer, "No".

The article continues, "The incendiary debate over abortion rights endures and can be jarring...."

"Nearly four decades after the Supreme Court made abortion legal nationwide and two decades after the justices reaffirmed the right, the political argument over abortion persists."

"The enduring divide represents the reality that there are fundamental religious differences on the issue of abortion that do not exist on, say, campaign finance or even health care."

[Again, like circumcision.]

"The Supreme Court that Sotomayor is poised to join is deeply split on abortion."

"A five-justice majority has long backed the 1973 'Roe v. Wade' decision. Yet a different five-justice majority (with Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote among the nine) has recently allow more government regulation of the abortion procedure."


My interest in following this circumcision issue is I want to keep it legal, available, and without age restriction and further, without religious restriction.

I currently contribute to organizations fighting to keep abortion legal and available. I would also contribute to organizations fighting to keep circumcision legal, available, and unrestricted.

Just as with abortion, the vintagecarguys, azgreens, TLCTuggers, richos and the rest are never going to present "evidence" and "facts" to convince us l2ltlarrys who hold that circumcision is a public good, not a public harm. And our "evidence" and "facts" are never going to convince them.

Meaning we are in an abortion-like deadlock.

I don't buy the "human rights for new-born babies" just as I don't buy "human rights for unborn babies". This is not as yet established as law; I plan to do as much as I can to see that it never is.

================================================== =============
To ascede to walter05s objection in his post # 931, 7-28-09,2:34pm, I changed the above paragraph which originally read:
Just as with abortion, the vintagecarguys, azgreens, TLCTuggers, richos and the rest are never going to present "evidence" and "facts" to convince us walter05s, l2ltlarrys, Sanslines's, and the few others who hold that circumcision is a public good, not a public harm. And our "evidence" and "facts" are never going to convince them.
================================================== =============

[vintagecarguy]

Just as with abortion, the vintagecarguys, azgreens, TLCTuggers, richos and the rest are never going to present "evidence" and "facts" to convince us walter05s, l2ltlarrys, Sanslines's, and the few others who hold that circumcision is a public good, not a public harm. And our "evidence" and "facts" are never going to convince them.

Well...
yes on deadlock,since logic and reason are rare commodities and both side are set but like abortion... NO!
If the fetus is aborted,no matter if one is for or against ,that fetus wont grow to be a man who will fight to stop abortion.
Cut a baby after it's born and he may well grow to be a man with the good sense and ethics to fight to stop cutting a human being.

[l2ltlarry]

By richo:
"If you do something society determines to be unethical - such as arbitrarily amputating parts of a child's anatomy - society can and will hold you accountable."

Not necessarily. I don't hold that "Female Genital "Circumcision"" is a positive thing but obviously some cultures do. I did a little study on the laws against it and how many people had been prosecuted under them. Some of the laws were passed in 1985 and several others in the mid-'90's. By 2003, there were no court cases on record. About that same time, some countries began trying to bump up the penalties from 4 years in prison to 14 years in prison, even though nobody or essentially nobody was being prosecuted.

One 60-page article I looked at said that in at least one culture that had passed laws again FGM/FG"C", the numbers of occurrences increased, due to resentment toward people demeaning their culture with their laws.

Unless laws enjoy widespread public support, the chances are they are not going to work very well, if at all.

Again, I don't support FGM/FG"C", believing that it truly does damage and harm to girls. But one point made by some of the articles about female "circumcision" was that it is nearly impossible to find out how many females have been "circumcised" due to the very private nature of the practice and cultural barriers thrown up to prevent outsiders from finding out.

I think that if male circumcision were made illegal, it, too, would turn out to be very hard to prosecute similar to female "circumcision".

[l2ltlarry]

By vintagecarguy:
"Cut a baby after it's born and he may well grow to be a man with the good sense and ethics to fight to stop cutting a human being."


On the other hand, he may well grow up to be a man who appreciates that someone had the good sense to circumcise him when he was born.

Supposedly two-thirds of circumcised males are glad they were done.

(Of course, anybody can make surveys and statistics say anything they want them to say.)

[vintagecarguy]

(Of course, anybody can make surveys and statistics say anything they want them to say.)

well there's something I think we can all agree on.

[l2ltlarry]

By TLCTugger, post # 855, 7-17-09:
"A very clear commandment which came hundreds of years after Abraham is THOU SHALL NOT STEAL. It is certainly stealing if you take healthy normal body parts without informed consent."

This is a stretch argument. The command "Thou shall not steal" was received by a circumcised man, Moses, for the Jewish people who were called "the circumcision". As soon as they entered Canaan, every man and boy was circumcised, leaving a mound of foreskins.

If they interpreted removal of foreskins as stealing, that would not have happened.

With the U.S. Constitution, interpretation usually assesses the framers' "original intent".

Using this logic, circumcision is not stealing.

[l2ltlarry]

Speaking of logic, as vintagecarguy did, I can make a ridiculous argument. I don't connect circumcision with religion; it pre-existed religion by a long time. I have previously said why I think that was so.

My ridiculous argument: Using John chapter 1 verse 1 (and following), and using the original pre-translated wording, I could say that logic itself was circumcised. Pre-translation, it says that in the beginning was logic, and logic was with God, and logic was God. And eventually logic became flesh and lived on earth. And that that logic in human form was circumcised when it was a week old.

I'm not making a religious argument because I don't care about religion as it relates to circumcision. I'm merely making a grasping-at-straws argument, just for fun.

[Someone28]

Someone28;

You said, "I heard that I was born perfectly healthy in every which way, and my parents do not follow any faith that requires it, but for some inane reason they chose to cut me at birth regardless."

I have a few simple questions.

1) Have you asked your parents why they had you circumcised? (It may be that the reasons would make sense to you. Even if you disagree with them, it could help to know why.)

2) Human knowledge and understanding are constantly evolving. I had my tonsils taken out when I was 5. Today they would not take them out for that reason. I don't blame my parents or the doctor. They made the best decision they could based on the information available at the time. Can you accept that they made the best decision they could based on the information available to them at the time?

3) Who told you there is something wrong with your circumcised penis?

4) You seem like an angry person who is angry at his parents. Are they still married or are they divorced?

5) Are there other reasons you are angry at your parents?

1: Oh but of course. They had their reasons, and I'm sure that they made sense to THEM at the time, but not me. Cutting a child for prevention of disease he is not at immediate risk to anytime soon, (STD's) cutting a child up for "family tradition" to fit in, (which the very thought of makes me sick to my stomach and want to vomit, it's a primitive notion thoroughly discounting his future feelings) cutting a child for "cleanliness", (as if he cannot be expected as a girl could to WASH himself, they get smegma too you know. I feel offended at this as it implies that. How hard could pulling back skin possibly be when you can?) you know. All the typical baloney. I would like to point out that problems can arise from getting cut too that are EXCLUSIVE to cut men. Skin bridge, suture holes in the skin where dirt can collect, skin tag, loss of sensation, (mostly subjective, yes I am aware of this, still something to consider.) too little/tight skin for erection, hair on the shaft as the tighter skin grows during childhood to accommodate erections, etc. List goes on. It can even contribute to penoscrotal webbing development, I actually have a bit of that myself. So it's not all it's cracked up to be in the "health" department, honestly.

2: You're absolutely correct. That is also grounds for why some people are now VEHEMENTLY in opposition of this. As for the "best decision" based on information available... There is a problem with that. There was no grossly biased information available to them. They never even once thought to look into any possible benefits there may have been in leaving me alone... They admitted to this when I confronted them. They just went to look straight into the cutting and then decided it was a done deal. Do you really think that's a balanced decision? In their eyes, I suppose it may have been "best" but personally I have no problem or hangup in admitting to the fact that I don't. And it's naive to think doctors won't sometimes bring up their own financial interests. What do they get for cutting? Money. What do they get for not? Nothing. Sometimes they can be blamed. The key word is sometimes.

3: I'm not sure why you would ask this. Nobody even really told me anything, I just got curious and decided to look into things for myself one day. Then I learned of the difference, of the fact that I was deprived some childhood experiences and had ignorance naturally forced upon me in turn. For one growing up his whole life believing nothing was ever done to him, it's quite an understandable reaction to feel betrayed and back stabbed when those beliefs are torn down. But unlike some others, I have no interest in staying stuck there. It's true that others may be thankful for it being done, but not me. You have to acknowledge that this kind of thing can and DOES happen. It is a very real sort of risk that you take on if you do something to modify a child's body before they can object when nothing was wrong in the first place. That is my basis for finding it objectionable: Why? When the child is healthy. No point whatsoever. Same thing with human rights. They're violated.

4:They still are, and I guess it is reasonable to assume that I'm an angry kind of person. Usually I am not, but when it concerns this? Something that I feel strongly about that still goes on to this very day and has personally affected me in a negative light? You bet. One of them now knows better and sees both sides of the issue, the other... Well, he won't admit that he may have decided on something that was NOT for the best in my case. When that situation happens, I believe that I have every right to criticize some of the things they have done. I realize that parents are not perfect, but that doesn't mean they should be exempt from this kind of thing anyway. Especially from their own offspring who the flippant decision will affect most of all.

5: No, not really. Do not take the forceful things I say the wrong way, as I DO appreciate them. Everything else they did I would consider them to be in the right, besides this.

I am honestly baffled overall. Even if they can't be blamed for such a one-sided presentation of the ordeal before my birth, where is the common sense? It wasn't even that long ago and in one of the nations with a supposedly lower rate, no less! That does anger me, but... I guess you can only do what you can and keep on going. For this and as one of the unlucky few, I will continue to speak out concerning the injustices of circumcision, both male and female. All the same in my eyes.

[Sanslines]

Circumcision clealry has it's roots in religious beliefs and customs. To state that circumcision has nothing to do with religion is misinformed.

History Of Circumcision:

"It has been variously proposed that male circumcision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision) began as a religious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion) sacrifice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrifice), as a rite of passage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rite_of_passage) marking a boy's entrance into adulthood, as a form of sympathetic magic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking) to ensure virility, as a means of suppressing or enhancing sexual pleasure, as an aid to hygiene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene) where regular bathing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathing) was impractical, as a means of marking those of lower or higher social status, as a means of differentiating a circumcising group from their non-circumcising neighbors, as a means of discouraging masturbation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masturbation) or other socially proscribed sexual behaviors, to remove "excess" pleasure, to increase a man's attractiveness to women, as a symbolic castration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castration), as a demonstration of one's ability to endure pain, or as a male counterpart to menstruation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstruation) or the breaking of the hymen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hymen) or to copy the rare natural occurrence of a missing foreskin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aposthia) of an important leader. It has been suggested that the custom of circumcision gave advantages to tribes that practiced it and thus led to its spread regardless of whether the people understood this. [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision#cite_note-0) It is possible that circumcision arose independently in different cultures for different reasons. Biblical circumcision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_in_the_Bible) was an expression that a man had chosen to live his life for God and could control his own body. In the passing of time it has become isolated from this entirely, rather like infant christening."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision

[Someone28]

Circumcision clealry has it's roots in religious beliefs and customs. To state that circumcision has nothing to do with religion is misinformed.

Yes, I completely realize that. (I'm still baffled) However, my argument against it comes from the angle of human rights and concerning the medical. I consider the religious aspects to be mostly a red herring in a debate about it for this context and reason. The same could be said of whether the victim remembers it or not. That too is a red herring. If a women is drugged for date rape so that she will not remember or mind it, it's still considered no less of a crime. Just providing an example, here.

[Sanslines]

.............
4:They still are, and I guess it is reasonable to assume that I'm an angry kind of person. Usually I am not, but when it concerns this? Something that I feel strongly about that still goes on to this very day and has personally affected me in a negative light? You bet. One of them now knows better and sees both sides of the issue, the other... Well, he won't admit that he may have decided on something that was NOT for the best in my case. When that situation happens, I believe that I have every right to criticize some of the things they have done. I realize that parents are not perfect, but that doesn't mean they should be exempt from this kind of thing anyway. Especially from their own offspring who the flippant decision will affect most of all.

Do you not believe that your parents made the best decision possible at the time. I don't really see the point of a child constantly blaming their parents for something when their parents did not deliberately harm their child. It only leads to creating a feeling of guilt that should not exist.

Back in the 1950's, flouriscopes were routinely used to x-ray feet for the purpose of chosing the appropriate shoe size at shoe stores. This practice occured back in the atomic age when there was a naive belief that radiation could only benefit man. Of course unecessary exposure to radiation has since been proven to cause all sorts of medical problems and the old practices have all been abandoned. It would certainly be easy for today's children to blame parents for unecessary exposure to radiation yet in those days, the harmful effects were not known and society fully accepted the practice as perfectly normal.

I also do not see how a person can fully understand what it feels like to either have or not have a foreskin when the foreskin was either removed or not removed when an infant. How can someone miss something that someone never had?

[Someone28]

Do you not believe that your parents made the best decision possible at the time. I don't really see the point of a child constantly blaming their parents for something when their parents did not deliberately harm their child. It only leads to creating a feeling of guilt that should not exist.

I will admit, you do make some good and valid points here. It's not as though this hasn't occurred to me before. What I think... In truthful clarification, is that they made the only decision they were given adequate (albeit one-sided) information on. As I said, they were told literally nothing else of the opposite side and only heard of the harms that I personally feel were blown WAAAY out of proportion. Why is, or was it, that the human foreskin is thought to bring NOTHING but problems and is so special? It's really irrational, (and contradictory to our intelligence) no other animal usually ever has problems with their similar part. As you say, I cannot really blame them for that. I guess the only thing to blame really is societal ignorance and general human stupidity or gullibility. But it wasn't really my intent to mention these things for therapy, just so you're aware.

It would certainly be easy for today's children to blame parents for unecessary exposure to radiation yet in those days, the harmful effects were not known and society fully accepted the practice as perfectly normal.

This is true, but how long ago was that? Like you said, it was the 1950's. Don't you think that future practices should at the very least be held up to higher standards based upon the faults that have occurred in history? History is a valuable reference, it should be explored thoroughly to pinpoint then highlight the ill effects that lack of foresight in human behavior can bring about. Even if they think it's for the best, it not always is. We should learn from our mistakes... There have been many to learn from I should think. Just saying...

[Sanslines]

This is true, but how long ago was that? Like you said, it was the 1950's. Don't you think that future practices should at the very least be held up to higher standards based upon the faults that have occurred in history? History is a valuable reference, it should be explored thoroughly to pinpoint then highlight the ill effects that lack of foresight in human behavior can bring about. Even if they think it's for the best, it not always is. We should learn from our mistakes... There have been many to learn from I should think. Just saying...

In a rational society that 'thinks', many of the problems that we currently face would not exist. Most people do not 'think' but only react on a somewhat superficial level. Schools seldom seem to teach students how to think critically and objectively. Advertising, the media, and other agencies fully understand this and also how to use fear (as an example) to get people to react.

History does indeed offer valuable lessons but history is not necessarily truth. As an example, different countries present vastly different histories concerning WW II. I have found numerous examples of 'history' that really is nothing more then propoganda.

There is also a tendency among humans to never dwell on what is perceived as negative aspects of history. People basically want to be optomistic and do not want to remember negative aspects of anything.

[Someone28]

Very true, I agree mostly with everything that you have said there.

It is a crying shame to me in some regards. I find that there is quite a bit of wisdom to be attained from taking into account and remembering the negative. That doesn't necessarily mean you'd need to dwell on it, though. I guess the pessimism of it all simply proves to be too much for some. When you actively search for it, you have to admit that there is a LOT of negative stuff in life. But then, that too may merely be another matter of perspective. Whatever perpetuates RIC, I still feel that it must stop. Only MY perspective of course, but others do share it.

[walter05]

Somone28;

I am glad that Sanslines helped you understand my point. I was really concerned that you were carrying an anger and hatred of your parents. That kind of anger and hatred could only be harmful. I am glad that you concede that they made the best decision they thought was the best they could.

We are in agreement that there is a lot of mis-information on circumcision. That is true on both the fanatically pro-circumcision side and the ant-circumcision side. I would be in favor of balanced information being provided to all parents and requiring them to at least sign informed consent forms first. (I know that this is not enough for you. However, would you be willing to support that as something we can agree on.)

Your complaint that your father can't consider himself wrong to have had you circumcised shows a lack of understanding of human beings. It is likely that if you are circumcised, so is he. He would have to admit that there is a problem with his penis. If he can't see a problme with his, he will not see a problem with yours.

To force that view on him is to put a stumbling block on your relationship with him. We often love and respect people that don't agree with us on every thing. Learning to do that is an important step in becoming a well rounded human adult.

You just dismiss religion out right. Do you have any religious beliefs yourself?

Do you believe that there are scriptures either written by a deity or written under inspiration of a deity?

Can you concede that others may intelligently believe that scriptures can be written by a deity or under inspiration of a deity?

Walter

[walter05]

Lt2Larry;

You said, "walter05s, l2ltlarrys, Sanslines's, and the few others who hold that circumcision is a public good, not a public harm. And our "evidence" and "facts" are never going to convince them."

Please re-read my posts. I never said that.

In fact, I admitted if religious obligations were not involved, I would not be in favor of circumcision.

I have stated that it is possible that there are benefits besides religious obligations.

I have also stated that if a law against infant circumcision is made without an exception for religion, then Orthodox Judaism is made illegal.

I have said that I believe that the position of the American Academy of Pediatics which is here http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686 provides the most reasonable position I have seen.

I am only stating that the objective scientific data does not provide a compelling argument for or against circumcision. As a result, I agree with the AAP's statement "parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision."

[Someone28]

I am glad that Sanslines helped you understand my point. I was really concerned that you were carrying an anger and hatred of your parents. That kind of anger and hatred could only be harmful. I am glad that you concede that they made the best decision they could.

As I have said, though, rather than making the "best" decision, (for my case) they made the ONLY one they were given adequate, but not unbiased, information on. This is the point that I am making. I do not think it was best, just the only one they could have made considering the terribly one-sided situation. For this, I can forgive them, but I am hoping to be able to satisfactorily reverse the damage done in the future regardless of the fact that I don't hold a grudge. I hope that this growing number of men who want this become more widely known, appreciated, and respected. I think positively of the natural form; it does more than merely annoy me that mine was altered and the growth it would have gone through disrupted against my own will.

We are in agreement that there is a lot of mis-information on circumcision. That is true on both the fanatically pro-circumcision side and the ant-circumcision side. I would be in favor of balanced information being provided to all parents and requiring them to at least sign informed consent forms first. (I know that this is not enough for you. However, would you be willing to support that as something we can agree on.)

Yes, we are in agreement on the obvious biases concerning it. That would have been nice, if my parents were given completely accurate information, but with the environment that just wasn't... Possible. I had about a 1/100 chance of being left alone. Cut family, friends, and they even knew of an intact man that only complained. :disappointed: (Just because it happens to ONE man, that doesn't automatically mean it will happen to another... All fear mongering and uncertainty there.) Unfortunately, no. I'll admit that I can't agree with you on the consent form. I don't pretend to hide the fact that you could consider me biased. Until the infant starts signing it, then I don't see it as humane. Period. I will consider the end result risky and unpredictable. Both physically and psychologically, always. There is also the matter of the legal double standard of protection with girls... That isn't fair, wouldn't you say?

Your complaint that your father can't consider himself wrong to have had you circumcised shows a lack of understanding of human beings. It is likely that if you are circumcised, so is he. He would have to admit that there is a problem with his penis. If he can't see a problme with his, he will not see a problem with yours.

It isn't a lack of human understanding that gave rise to such an opinion of him, what you said there makes perfect sense to me and you are right on both counts. He is as well. What bothers me most of all is the plain UNWILLINGNESS (not hostility, more in the stubborn kind of way) to consider things he displayed at first when I confronted him on it. I never approached him in an unreasonable way, actually I'm probably being more unreasonable on here than I was when I spoke with him... At the very least, he has been respectful enough to acknowledge that it has been a big problem and issue for ME. That's as far as it goes... I asked him once after I half-enlightened him if he would still commit to the same act on another baby, any babe, and the answer? Unsurprisingly enough to me, he said yes. I didn't know how to respond, but my emotions were barely positive. I just kept my mouth shut. When you feel very strongly about something you perceive to be immoral, and someone thinks it is perfectly acceptable, how would you react? For the record, this also came from someone who still ignorantly believes that infants are incapable of feeling pain. In 2009. I'll let you judge.

To force that view on him is to put a stumbling block on your relationship with him. We often love and respect people that don't agree with us on every thing. Learning to do that is an important step in becoming a well rounded human adult.

Well, I'm not sure of what else to say to this. I respect and tolerate him mostly because he was responsible... In his own kind of way. That's it. I don't usually initiate conversations with him, or barely speak small talk, so I guess I don't have much of a relationship with him to begin with to put a stumbling block over. I do have respect, yes, but love..? That's another matter. Even if I tried, I guess "love" just simply isn't unconditional for me. :confused: On the upside, he doesn't seem to mind this and rarely ever complains or has tried to get close to me. He's an optimistic recluse who usually listens when asked. If a bit lazy sometimes... I know I can't expect people to agree with everything I say, but for some of those things... They just border on a VERY basic sense of right and justice to me. To see others scoff at those beliefs? Even act contrary? It's disgusting enough to sever mental ties. In that sense, you could say I too am religious in my own way, and that circumcision can cut in more ways than one. More on the religious aspect now.

You just dismiss religion out right. Do you have any religious beliefs yourself?

Do you believe that there are scriptures either written by a deity or written under inspiration of a deity?

Can you concede that others may intelligently believe that scriptures can be written by a deity or under inspiration of a deity?

I did dismiss it, primarily because I saw no reason at the time to address it and felt it would only serve to distract people, but if you're so insistent... I suppose I'll have no choice but to answer.

1: As a matter of fact, I was born and raised catholic. I believe it was the entire experience, but I can't say for certain as I've not... Particularly cared to retain those memories or even research into the matter entirely. I attended a church, a school within said church, sat on those benches, heard prayers recited, been blessed by priests and eaten little discs of I think sacred bread handed out by them... Even baptized. Do any of those account for something? I can't be too sure. Over the years as I grew, I sort of just... Lost interest gradually and became displaced from it all. I never cared too strongly to begin with. It was something I did JUST because my parents wanted me too. I never minded being baptized, do you want to know why? It is far, FAR less invasive, than getting a piece of your genitals cut away. THAT, is something I would be bothered by. I don't think it would even truly matter whether I was born into a Jewish family. Maybe it could, but then again, you DO have those Jews that speak out against it. It's not totally unheard of either. But of course, you could always just exclude those few from the whole and consider them unworthy of claiming that they are a true Jew. They wouldn't be Orthodox with a stance like that would they? But then where is the sense to question traditions passed down for generations? Religion should not be specially excluded from criticism of it's ways. That is just completely idiotic, think of what today would be if people at large of faith NEVER moved on from some of the more unacceptable practices. (Here are a few examples... Stoning disobedient children and adulterers, avoiding menstruating women, forcing raped virgins to marry their attackers, and I think barring disfigured people from full sacred involvement, but I could be wrong on any of them.) If a law is passed to ban Circumcision, I don't personally feel that Orthodox Jews should feel persecuted. Why could they not settle for some kind of symbolic puncturing to draw blood instead? That's far less severe... And it's still upholding some part of their tradition. Oh wait, I guess it's just because Orthodoxy is super-strict and they do not consider this subject to negotiation, right? Besides that matter however, more towards the original question... I don't know if I truly am religious or not. I seem to fall somewhere in between. I prefer living a life in accordance with logic and reason... On those grounds, I feel that it is a literal impossibility to prove or disprove whether a god/godess of ANY kind exists. There are holes even in the atheistic proposals. The big bang... Okay then, what began the cycle of the big bang in the first place? You just need to continue asking the question series of what made what, it's so ridiculously easy to throw up yet more mysteries all around us. All I simply try to do is live life honestly and by a basic guide of morality. I don't think you need anything more than that. Guess that makes me an agnostic, doesn't it. I can see no (well, logical to me... But I guess my feeble mortal mind could NEVER fathom the will of a deity) reason why God, if he is real, would look down upon me red-eyed and frothing at the mouth in anger at me for fighting to support child's rights when they are in their most vulnerable state of all. More than that, fighting to defend a structure that HE put there in the first place, only to command us to slice it away. Doesn't that sound... Strange to you? I think if I were to restore, it would simply be honoring the original design he gave to me. But if that damns me to hell, then... Well, whatever. Much of the things exhibited by humanity I cannot tolerate to begin with. And if God designed us this way, knowing that he would essentially be dumping us on a floating rock drifting in space, while making our ability to understand the things around us nigh-impossible... (We are literally swimming about in one massive sea of uncertainty, being TOTALLY incapable of proving him or not.) I can't say that I like him much. How could he have expected anything less when he imbued us with the traits that he did? It's only human nature itself at play. I'd say overall, we're failed creations and he should have had lower expectations. But, if he truly is all-loving then maybe he'll understand. One can hope. But it doesn't bother me like a haunting thought or anything.

2: I've already spoken about this in a way. It's impossible to prove or disprove a deity. The very concept is fundamentally flawed to be like this. That said, I cannot say for certain. No one can of that. And if the scriptures are written in inspiration, by a MAN... Then I'd have to say the scripture would be undeniably subject to the corruption of mankind's ways. I think our interpretation of god could very well be flawed because of this. Ultimately it's up to you to find your own truth. This is yet another of the reasons why I feel so strongly against RIC. You have NO right whatsoever to impose YOUR own beliefs upon the defenseless and yet to develop. That would even be violating their own religious "freedom" (a mockery of the word) in a sense. This is what I think.

3: Of course I can, but I do not equate the natural (or god-given) ability of humans to utilize abstract and higher thought with intelligence... It's quite possible to have faith tied into something so strongly that could slap you in the face with a cold, harsh reality when you find out that it's totally untrue. Think about it for a moment... If you die, and there is no heaven nor hell, then what is it that awaits you? I think it could probably be complete, blank oblivion that persists for eternity. You don't have any prior memory to being born, do you? Would you find that a comforting, or scary thought? My point being, that in that case I wouldn't really consider the belief intelligent, just misguided. Though this is FAR removed from circumcision. I guess I would only be saying the typical and expected; just because a group believes in something doesn't make it right. But I dislike arguing religion to begin with, it's a slippery slope either way and rarely makes complete sense, with people barely listening.

[walter05]

Someone28;

So far, I think this has been a thoughtful conversation.

Orthodox Judaism believes that there is a set of laws in scripture called "Chokes". This is often translated as statutes. We don't really know why these laws are there. However, they are statutes from the master of the world so we do as told.

The laws of keeping Kosher, not mixing linen and wool, etc. fall into this category.

The requirement to circumcise a male on the 8th day falls into that category.

Some Jews have felt it necessary to understand them to follow them. They have rationalized them.

Some say Kosher is healthier. However Chicken livers ground and mixed with chicken fat is not healthy. It is however Kosher.

I believe that circumcision falls into that category.

I agree that this is an non-logical conclusion. However, for thousands of years, millions of Orthodox Jews have held to that view. This is despite the fact that there have been times when there have been major attempts to stop it.

After Alexander the Great died, the Greek empire split into three. One third was based in Damascus and Judea fell into that category. Antiochus out lawed circumcision. The result was a revolt where the Greeks were defeated by a small group. The miracles surrounding this victory are what is celebrated at Chanukah.

If you insist on a blanket out lawing of circumcision, you insist on out lawing Orthodox Judaism.

If there is going to be an exception for religion, then what about real health threats to the baby?

What about cases of strong family history of phimosis, cancer of the penis, etc.?

This is why, I think the decision should be left up to parents. I agree that absent some overwhelming religious or health requirement, the best decision is not. Later if the boy wants one, he should be able to choose one.

In your case, I believe I can intelligently discuss this with someone even if we must agree to disagree on some points.

Once we do agree on what to disagree on, then I would prefer to agree on what we can.

The reason for the signed consent was to make sure that the parents are provided with clear unbiased information prior to making the decision. Without the signed consent, I am afraid that doctors can tell the parents any thing. A doctor who always performed circumcisions, and may have made money doing so, would not provide unbiased information. The signed consent form should force the doctor to provide that information.

[azgreen]

Dr. Dean Edell, a medical who had a national TV show for years and was syndicated on radio, is a Jew who had a bunch of sons. Part-way through having sons, he realized that circumcision was wrong and left the rest of his sons intact. Since then he has been an outspoken champion for the intact penis. Recently posted was a 9-minutes discussion he had with another Jew, Bill Handel, about circumcision. Dr. Edell really packs in the facts and states the case for not cutting boy. Well worth a listen:

http://www.thingamababy.com/baby/2009/07/circumcision-2.html

[Someone28]

So far, I think this has been a thoughtful conversation.

Glad that you agree.

Orthodox Judaism believes that there is a set of laws in scripture called "Chokes". This is often translated as statutes. We don't really know why these laws are there. However, they are statutes from the master of the world so we do as told.

The laws of keeping Kosher, not mixing linen and wool, etc. fall into this category.

The requirement to circumcise a male on the 8th day falls into that category.

Some Jews have felt it necessary to understand them to follow them. They have rationalized them.

Some say Kosher is healthier. However Chicken livers ground and mixed with chicken fat is not healthy. It is however Kosher.

I believe that circumcision falls into that category.

I agree that this is an non-logical conclusion. However, for thousands of years, millions of Orthodox Jews have held to that view. This is despite the fact that there have been times when there have been major attempts to stop it.

Interesting about the laws, but again how do you know for absolute certainty and fact, that all those countless eons ago, they were definitely written by a God and not some man who thought it would be a good idea and it caught on?

I would also like to reiterate the fact that, no matter how ancient, enduring and time honored a tradition is, that doesn't automatically make it or those who believe in it right. I'm sure the people who circumcise their daughters have their own beliefs validated by this way of thought. Yet it is still banned.

After Alexander the Great died, the Greek empire split into three. One third was based in Damascus and Judea fell into that category. Antiochus out lawed circumcision. The result was a revolt where the Greeks were defeated by a small group. The miracles surrounding this victory are what is celebrated at Chanukah.

A distasteful "celebration" in my eyes. I fight for what I perceive to be abuse to stop, they fight for it to continue. Irony. At base don't we all have better interests for our fellow man at heart? I don't see why it has to be divided this way.

If you insist on a blanket out lawing of circumcision, you insist on out lawing Orthodox Judaism.

If there is going to be an exception for religion, then what about real health threats to the baby?

What about cases of strong family history of phimosis, cancer of the penis, etc.?

Well, yes that is true if they wish to be so narrow and restricted about what it is they can and can't do. Haven't numerous faiths re-evaluated practices they deemed antiquated? I'm sure God could understand. But there we go with that slippery slope again. My examples in the previous post still stand. Like I said above, going by this logic, if you have a belief for circumcising your daughter, it should be tolerated by law and ENTIRELY acceptable. There is no moral ground to say otherwise, we aren't any better than them like this.

As for health threats, it is my belief that less invasive means to resolve the problem should ALWAYS be pursued before taking more drastic action. I only think circumcision voiding human rights should be warranted in case of an emergency where it must be done to save the child's life. That kind of thing. I also have no problem with it being done to someone who can consent... Most times, the diseases it is promoted to protect against are overblown out of the water. 50% stated just like that sounds good, real good, but what if... When you look deeper, you had a 2% risk to start with, and 50% in advertisement meant only an additional 2% increase in prevention? Deception like this is used frequently to sell snake oil, but with differing statistics. It makes the problem sound worse than it actually is in truth. Phimosis can be resolved with stretching the skin, pretty much exactly alike how some resentful cut men go on to restore their own foreskin. Eventually it can be loosened to the point capable of retraction. Of course it takes time, but as they say patience should be a learned virtue. I think there was also some steroid creams for doing that. Heard the UK was favoring them. Penile cancer..? USUALLY, the rates for that are even lower than male breast cancer... You would have to cut a whole lot of children just to prevent one case of that. Consider and weigh the complications of circumcision that could plague the other cut children at their own expense JUST for that one saved man of penile cancer. It is impossible for human hands to be 100% accurate all of the time, and that isn't really a fair statistical game. Should it (penile cancer) happen, though, I'm sure by that time we'll have developed better treatment options. Wouldn't you think?

This is why, I think the decision should be left up to parents. I agree that absent some overwhelming religious or health requirement, the best decision is not. Later if the boy wants one, he should be able to choose one.

The only one of those I consider to be truly valid is the health one... *Sigh* It's easy to see that religion gets in the way of everything sometimes and is more forceful or outspoken than it should be on some issues. It's part of the reason I stopped caring as much for my own. I was raised catholic, I do not have a problem with gays, for example. The church sure does, though. Me? I accept it as a natural occurrence. Other than the aforementioned, I can agree with you. It's easy to cut off something nature (or god) took months to develop in utero, in 5 minutes. It's not nearly so easy to get it back. It takes years. And it isn't even quite the real thing. If they do cut for religious reasons, they had BETTER be respectful if their own son decides to reconcile his faith and "reverse" the procedure. He has every right in the world. Bar none. As they did impose their own twisted variant of this "freedom" upon his freedom. The human psyche is so unbelievably warped. I don't know what more to say. I'm at a loss for words.

The reason for the signed consent was to make sure that the parents are provided with clear unbiased information prior to making the decision. Without the signed consent, I am afraid that doctors can tell the parents any thing. A doctor who always performed circumcisions, and may have made money doing so, would not provide unbiased information. The signed consent form should force the doctor to provide that information.

I agree with you, but if only it were that easy. Yes, it SHOULD force them to disclose ALL information, not just the info concerning their own private financial agenda. While we're at it, why not allow men circumcised in infancy who truly feel aggrieved the ability to sue more readily? A few such cases have already emerged actually. :sneaky:

In your case, I believe I can intelligently discuss this with someone even if we must agree to disagree on some points.

Once we do agree on what to disagree on, then I would prefer to agree on what we can.

Well, I have already told you of what I will and won't agree with for the most part. As things are now, I find it to be pretty much inexcusable and hypocritical to continue on with it. If people and certain religious faiths INSIST that it be done, they can expect centuries more of continued controversy that will never die or stop hounding them. This is just the reality of things. When you cut infants, it's only rational that when some (not all) grow up and learn of the truth, they're gonna turn out to be pissed off. If it goes on for long enough, I think, based on history that it's reasonable to assume that something more major WILL happen again. (Or, we could always die out as a race first.) Not in our lifetime, probably, but even then you never know. Short of taking away peoples free speech, there's nothing they could ever do to stop the onslaught of criticism. I won't stop decrying it either until the day that I die. Quite pathetic that there is such a massive iron wall here, isn't it? :(

At the very least, I think it could be outlawed for medical reasons to ordinary people or faiths where it is not indicated but you could let the Jews have their way as they are SUCH a special case apparently... But that's a half-solution, a compromise. As I said before if they're allowed to continue cutting using that logic then girls should be allowed to be cut too and removed from law protection. Don't you see these flaws and double standards? It would only be fair.

[TLCTugger]

By TLCTugger, post # 855, 7-17-09:
"A very clear commandment which came hundreds of years after Abraham is THOU SHALL NOT STEAL. It is certainly stealing if you take healthy normal body parts without informed consent."

This is a stretch argument. The command "Thou shall not steal" was received by a circumcised man, Moses, for the Jewish people who were called "the circumcision". As soon as they entered Canaan, every man and boy was circumcised, leaving a mound of foreskins.

So you're saying if it happened unpunished in the bible god approves for us today? Like slavery, polygamy, rape of vigins, genocide, killing of innocent babies and pregnant women? All good?

Of course my Thou Shall Not Steal is a stretch. I'm not saying it's my rationale. It's all childish fairy tale as far as I'm concerned. But a Jew born today has as much right to adopt my interpretation as yours. Cut his body, take away his choice. The law must not FAIL to protect someone just because his family has a certain religion.

But again, it's irrelevant. The law already says many things that religions would otherwise do (or fail to do) for minors can make their adherants criminals. There is no general protection for harming others just because you claim it is your religion.

[TLCTugger]

I agree with the AAP's statement "parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision."

I think it's odd to stress what the AAP said about ethics (when that is not their field) and ignore what they said medically: The potential benefits do not outweigh the known risks and drawbacks.

And having said that medical opinion, their ethical tag simply does not follow, except as a cowardly nod to current practice. Imagine if they came out and admittted circumcision was harmful. Would they be opening their membership up to lawsuits beyond comprehension? I'm amazed they came out as anti-circ as they did.

[walter05]

Glad that you agree.



Interesting about the laws, but again how do you know for absolute certainty and fact, that all those countless eons ago, they were definitely written by a God and not some man who thought it would be a good idea and it caught on?

I would also like to reiterate the fact that, no matter how ancient, enduring and time honored a tradition is, that doesn't automatically make it or those who believe in it right. I'm sure the people who circumcise their daughters have their own beliefs validated by this way of thought. Yet it is still banned.

>>>

There are a lot of things that we don't know absolutely for sure but we become convinced of. I am aware of no other claim that 600,000 plus men, plus women, plus children received communication from the creator at one time.

Even when there were early revolts to Moses and the laws, it was on the basis that all were there together.

If in the earlier generations, say about 3,300 years ago, there had been claims of that what was recorded was false, why are they not recorded. We have recorded information on rebellions, worship of idols, etc. through out.

The text in the Torah has been faithfully copied. We are convinced of that because even when Jewish communities have been separated by hundreds of miles and empires, and there was no communications, the Torah scrolls are identical. (I will concede that there is one letter in question.)

Our scriptures and literature record the errors made by Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc. We know they were not super men. I think the fact that their flaws and mistakes are also recorded provides further evidence that fidelity to truth was more important than image.

<<<

A distasteful "celebration" in my eyes. I fight for what I perceive to be abuse to stop, they fight for it to continue. Irony. At base don't we all have better interests for our fellow man at heart? I don't see why it has to be divided this way.

>>>

Chanukah was and is a celebration not just of victory over the Greeks. There were a group of Jews that were Hellenized. They wanted to modernize the faith so that the Jews would blend in more. These Jews were some of the biggest opponents of circumcision at that time.

It is interesting that today, that then ancient and supposedly out dated Orthodox Judaism with circumcision is a living, breathing faith. The faith of the Greeks is dead.

<<<

Well, yes that is true if they wish to be so narrow and restricted about what it is they can and can't do. Haven't numerous faiths re-evaluated practices they deemed antiquated? I'm sure God could understand. But there we go with that slippery slope again. My examples in the previous post still stand. Like I said above, going by this logic, if you have a belief for circumcising your daughter, it should be tolerated by law and ENTIRELY acceptable. There is no moral ground to say otherwise, we aren't any better than them like this.

>>>

A fundamental tenant of Orthodox Judaism is that the Torah contains instructions from our creator. If the creator wishes to modify those instructions, the creator will.

The idea that we do the will of the creator as told to us and that is how we fulfill our purpose and connect with the creator is the foundation of Orthodox Judaism.

Your question on circumcising a daughter is a fair question. If we allow one faith to keep it's ancient practices, why not others. Circumcising a clitoris is often comparable to removing an entire penis. It is usually a more dramatic operation. It is easy for me to see a difference between them. However, I concede this concern. I just don't find this conern out weighs allowing a faith to continue its practices that don't include female circumcision.

<<<

As for health threats, it is my belief that less invasive means to resolve the problem should ALWAYS be pursued before taking more drastic action. I only think circumcision voiding human rights should be warranted in case of an emergency where it must be done to save the child's life. That kind of thing. I also have no problem with it being done to someone who can consent... Most times, the diseases it is promoted to protect against are overblown out of the water. 50% stated just like that sounds good, real good, but what if... When you look deeper, you had a 2% risk to start with, and 50% in advertisement meant only an additional 2% increase in prevention? Deception like this is used frequently to sell snake oil, but with differing statistics. It makes the problem sound worse than it actually is in truth. Phimosis can be resolved with stretching the skin, pretty much exactly alike how some resentful cut men go on to restore their own foreskin. Eventually it can be loosened to the point capable of retraction. Of course it takes time, but as they say patience should be a learned virtue. I think there was also some steroid creams for doing that. Heard the UK was favoring them. Penile cancer..? USUALLY, the rates for that are even lower than male breast cancer... You would have to cut a whole lot of children just to prevent one case of that. Consider and weigh the complications of circumcision that could plague the other cut children at their own expense JUST for that one saved man of penile cancer. It is impossible for human hands to be 100% accurate all of the time, and that isn't really a fair statistical game. Should it (penile cancer) happen, though, I'm sure by that time we'll have developed better treatment options. Wouldn't you think?

>>>

I pointed out family medical histories as a variable. If there is a strong genetic link to cancer of the penis, the risk for the baby could be greater.

I agree that there is a lot of misinformation. The least invasive medical procedure should be the one chosen.

However, as much as saying the circumcision is the treatment for all phimosis may be over simplified, it is also over simplified not to say that in certain casis, it may be the best treatment.

My wife had breast cancer. An entire breast was removed because of the cancer. It was the best way as part of the treatment to save her life. Given a choice between removal of a breast, a foreskin, or even the entire penis to save a life or death, and the removal of the body part is the best option.

<<<

The only one of those I consider to be truly valid is the health one... *Sigh* It's easy to see that religion gets in the way of everything sometimes and is more forceful or outspoken than it should be on some issues. It's part of the reason I stopped caring as much for my own. I was raised catholic, I do not have a problem with gays, for example. The church sure does, though. Me? I accept it as a natural occurrence. Other than the aforementioned, I can agree with you. It's easy to cut off something nature (or god) took months to develop in utero, in 5 minutes. It's not nearly so easy to get it back. It takes years. And it isn't even quite the real thing. If they do cut for religious reasons, they had BETTER be respectful if their own son decides to reconcile his faith and "reverse" the procedure. He has every right in the world. Bar none. As they did impose their own twisted variant of this "freedom" upon his freedom. The human psyche is so unbelievably warped. I don't know what more to say. I'm at a loss for words.

>>>

I did teach in a Catholic school, but I am not Catholic. I can't intelligently comment on Catholicism. However, I will make what I think is a simple point. There are large numbers of Catholic priests, nuns, etc. Some of them are better listeners than others.

I am convinced that if you find the right one, you can ask your questions and get answers that you will understand better.

>>>

I agree with you, but if only it were that easy. Yes, it SHOULD force them to disclose ALL information, not just the info concerning their own private financial agenda. While we're at it, why not allow men circumcised in infancy who truly feel aggrieved the ability to sue more readily? A few such cases have already emerged actually. :sneaky:

>>>

If those performing the circumcision failed to disclose the information so that an informed choice could be made, I would be in favor of that suit.

I would be opposed to a suit against the parents. Parents make many tough decisions for their childrend. I would like to keep the courts out of that.

<<<

Well, I have already told you of what I will and won't agree with for the most part. As things are now, I find it to be pretty much inexcusable and hypocritical to continue on with it. If people and certain religious faiths INSIST that it be done, they can expect centuries more of continued controversy that will never die or stop hounding them. This is just the reality of things. When you cut infants, it's only rational that when some (not all) grow up and learn of the truth, they're gonna turn out to be pissed off. If it goes on for long enough, I think, based on history that it's reasonable to assume that something more major WILL happen again. (Or, we could always die out as a race first.) Not in our lifetime, probably, but even then you never know. Short of taking away peoples free speech, there's nothing they could ever do to stop the onslaught of criticism. I won't stop decrying it either until the day that I die. Quite pathetic that there is such a massive iron wall here, isn't it? :(

>>>

I agree with this statement. Over 3,721 years ago, Abraham was commanded to circumcise himself. He also circumcised his son Ishmael. (This is why Arabs circumcise their sons since many of them are descendants of Ishmael.) Over those millenia, there has been controversy over the operation. I expect that controversy will continue.

I believe that is part of the test of Orthodox Jews today. Continuing to follow a command from our creator even when there are those strongly against it.

<<<

At the very least, I think it could be outlawed for medical reasons to ordinary people or faiths where it is not indicated but you could let the Jews have their way as they are SUCH a special case apparently... But that's a half-solution, a compromise. As I said before if they're allowed to continue cutting using that logic then girls should be allowed to be cut too and removed from law protection. Don't you see these flaws and double standards? It would only be fair.

>>>

I am not in favor of outlawing it for medical reasons. Again, there may be valid reasons for it. I prefer to make sure that the parents are informed and trust them to make the best decision.

You can't comprehend what it means to run your life based on the commands of our creator. Following commandments passed down for thousands of years. Commandments that your ancestors had to risk their lives, and too often lose their lives to preserve.

Knowing that the word "Pharoah" is an Egyptian word. Its pronounciation is derived from Hebrew because only the Hebrew text provides a pronounciation.

One knows that ancient Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Crusaders, the English at York, some of the early Moslems, Mongols, the Inquisition, pogroms, Chelmneiki and the Kazaks, the Czars, Nazi Germany, and the modern Islamic terrorist tried to destroy this faith. Yet, I can watch as my children follow it and have confidence that they will pass it on.

The laws and following them are precious and provide the foundation for much of what is done. Unless you can truly grasp that, which you can't if you don't live it, respecting those that do as equally intellligent and capable human beings with a right to live their lives as they choose is all that I ask.

If there is no creator, and we are wrong. We raise loving, honorable good families surrounded by love and purpose because of that belief. If I die and that is the end of it, I will regret nothing.

[azgreen]

The Bloomberg Report web site July 17 says that the highly respected medical journal Lancet reported findings that circumcision was ineffective as a means of preventing the transmitting of HIV/AIDS to women in Africa.
Condoms and responsible sex can.
See the story at:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=a.9ZniOoll2c

[njnick86]

I'm circumsized... sometimes i wish i wasn't. But it does make cleaning down there easier. From what I understand it can get dirty and pretty smelly down there if not taken care of (uncut guys). I can see where being a nudist it would be a benifit to be uncicumsized because well... thats why we had foreskin to begin with.. to protects the glans from the environment.

just my 2 cents lol

[azgreen]

You say:

"From what I understand it can get dirty and pretty smelly down there if not taken care of (uncut guys)."

Alas, that is the most worn-out argument for circumcision. With ears, mouths, fingernails, armpits and butts, not to mention women's vaginal areas, we have spaces and places that have to be cleaned and cleaned routinely. Why must the foreskin always get singled out as problematic? When I take a shower, I roll the foreskin back routinely and quickly and it is clean in seconds. Please, folks, done dwell on that cleanliness issue. In as much that humans take care of the rest of their bodies, why won't they and why don't they clean it all? The foreskin cleanliness issue is just a woefully lame issue for routinely cutting babies against their will and permanently altering their more private and personal body structures.
Let's focus on the main issues: 1) circumcision is not medically necessary; 2) the foreskin was put there for legitimate purposes; and 3) removing it from a non-consenting male violates human rights, self-determination and body intergity and it is simply medically unethical. To exempt females from genital cutting but to call it OK for males is a gross double standard and a violation of equal treatment under the law.

[MoonShadow]

. To exempt females from genital cutting but to call it OK for males is a gross double standard and a violation of equal treatment under the law.


Two entirely different "cutting". Circumcision does NOT remove the penis. Female clitorectomies removes the entire clitoris. HUGE difference and should not be correlated with male circumision.

[vintagecarguy]

Two entirely different "cutting". Circumcision does NOT remove the penis. Female clitorectomies removes the entire clitoris. HUGE difference and should not be correlated with male circumision.
Once again...WRONG!Some cut the clitoris,some far more,some just the hood which is exactly analogous to male circumcision.Of course ALL genital cutting of healthy children of BOTH sexes is WRONG!


Female Genital Mutilation is the term used for removal of all or just part of the external parts of the female genitalia. There are three varieties to this procedure.
Sunna Circumcision - consists of the removal of the prepuce(retractable fold of skin, or hood) and /or the tip of the clitoris. Sunna in Arabic means "tradition".
Clitoridectomy - consists of the removal of the entire clitoris (prepuce and glands) and the removal of the adjacent labia.
Infibulation(pharonic circumcision)-- consists of performing a clitoridectomy (removal of all or part of the labia minora, the labia majora). This is then stitched up allowing a small hole to remain open to allow for urine and menstrual blood to flow through.
In Africa 85% of FGM cases consist of Clitoridectomy and 15% of cases consist of Infibulation. In some cases only the hood is removed.

here's the link to the full article..
http://www.members.tripod.com/~Wolvesdreams/FGM.html

[MoonShadow]

[QUOTE=vintagecarguy;235304]Once again...WRONG!Some cut the clitoris,some far more,some just the hood which is exactly analogous to male circumcision.Of course ALL genital cutting of healthy children of BOTH sexes is WRONG!


Again, you cannot make the correlation. Removal of the clitoris is NOT THE SAME or CANNOT BE CORRELATED to circumsizing. A circumsized penis can enjoy sexual pleasure orally/anally/vaginal; removal, partial or full removal of the clitoris makes sexual pleasure for a woman for vaginal orgasm next to impossible. Furthermore, clitorectomies are not done in western civilized countries so again, you cannot make the correlation.

I am not arguing or disagreeing on genital cutting but the correlation of male circumcision vs female genital mutilation.

[vintagecarguy]

Again, you cannot make the correlation. Removal of the clitoris is NOT THE SAME or CANNOT BE CORRELATED to circumsizing. A circumsized penis can enjoy sexual pleasure orally/anally/vaginal; removal, partial or full of the clitoris makes sexual pleasure for a woman for vaginal orgasm next to impossible. Furthermore, cloritectomies are not done in western civilized countries so again, you cannot make the correlation.


how many times do I have to say it?

NOT ALL FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATIONS INCLUDE CLITORECTOMY!!!!!!!!
SOME JUST REMOVE THE HOOD---read it again-THE HOOD and leave the CLITORIS untouched.SAME-read it again-SAME AS MALE.
ALL CUTTING OF HEALTHY CHILDREN'S GENITALS IS WRONG!
Now in case you missed it again---some female circumcision DOES NOT INCLUDE CUTTING THE CLITORIS---now I hope you've got it.
By the way...some men have LOST THEIR ENTIRE PENIS TO BOTCHED CIRCUMCISION!
Lets not argue over degrees of wrong-----IT'S ALL repeat ALL WRONG!

[MoonShadow]

vintagecarguy -- I think it is you who needs to re-read the article. You have totally missed the point.

You need to take a chill pill as you are losing it. Read the article you posted again and then think of the numbers.

[vintagecarguy]

I know their percentages are a little off.
I have seen pictures of women with just the hood removed...
some rave about how wonderfull they think it feels and how they want to give the benefits of it to their daughters.
sounds awfully familiar doesn't it?
did you read this part??????
In some cases only the hood is removed.
WARNING>>>BELOW
stuff from pro-cutting clitoral hood site.



II. Medical Studies
To the best of my knowledge, there have been four medical studies of circumcision of the clitoral hood (prepuce). The earliest report concerns a procedure that does not actually remove the clitoral prepuce, but stretches it in such a way as to obtain the result that "It is seldom that the prepuce will overgrow again once it has been opened." The other three report on results obtained from the actual surgical removal of the clitoral prepuce. All four report a striking percentage of those who had the procedure done experience enhanced sexual enjoyment.

McDonald, C. F. "Circumcision of the Female." General Practitioner 18.3 (September, 1958). 98-99.
(Claims to have circumcised "perhaps 40 patients," including some adult women. Among the adult women who underwent the procedure, "Very thankful patients were the reward. For the first time in their lives, sex ambition became normally satisfied" [98].)

Rathmann, W. G. "Female Circumcision, Indications and a New Technique." General Practitioner 20.3 (September, 1959). 115-120.
(Sent out a questionnaire to women whose prepuces he had removed, and received 112 replies. Of the 72 women who reported having never experienced an orgasm prior to the surgery, 9 [12.4%] reported continued failure to achieve orgasm; 64 [87.6%] reported successful achievement of orgasm after the surgery. Of the 39 who reported achieving orgasm only with difficulty prior to the surgery, 5 [12.5%] reported no improvement; 34 [87.5%] reported improvement after the surgery. Rathmann provides a number of indications and contraindications for the surgery, and invented a new clamp for the procedure.

Wollman, Leo."Hooded Clitoris: Preliminary Report." The Journal of the American Society of Psychosomatic Dentistry and Medicine 20.1 (1973), 3-4.
(Provides a "Statistical analysis of one hundred cases." Not clear whether the statistics Wollman reports include all one hundred women [32 of whom were not circumcisedösee below] or a statistical report of those who were circumcised. In this study, he reports the frequency of sexual intercourse before treatment as 3 times per week on average; after treatment as 5 times per week on average. 49 women were able to attain orgasm prior to treatment; 92 after. 92 subjectively report improvement in intensity of sexual response, rapidity of sexual response, and/or greater number of orgasms; 7 subjectively report no change, and 1 subjectively reports being worse off. The longest time since treatment was 20 years; 64 patients were followed up after 5 years since treatment. The treatment occurred in Wollman's office 98 times; in the hospital [at patient's request] 2 times.)

_______. "Female Circumcision." The Journal of the American Society of Psychosomatic Dentistry and Medicine 20.4 (1973), 130-131.
(Reports on one hundred consecutive patients referred to him by psychoanalysts and clinical psychologists. "Sixty eight benefited by surgical female circumcision: of the remaining thirty-two, twenty-eight showed no need for this procedure; four refused to be treated by this technique.")

Crist, Takey. "Female Circumcision." Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality 11.8 (August, 1977), 77.
(Reports on Crist's circumcision of fifteen women, and provides a list of four conditions for when the surgery would be indicated: "a) they could achieve orgasm only by masturbation and/or oral sex, b) they could have orgasm in the lateral or female-superior positions only, c) they stated, "it feels good, I get there, but suddenly it's over," d) they had a positive cotton-tip test, where patients felt a distinct difference when a cotton-tipped applicator was applied directly to the clitoris when the foreskin was retracted as opposed to application to the foreskin" [77]. Crist's study concludes, "Patients who have undergone this procedure have generally commented that they have enhanced sexual response.")

[l2ltlarry]

To ascede to walter05s objection in his post # 931, 7-28-09,2:34pm, I changed the paragraph in my post # 916, 7-28-09, 2:46am,
which originally read:

"Just as with abortion, the vintagecarguys, azgreens, TLCTuggers, richos and the rest are never going to present "evidence" and "facts" to convince us walter05s, l2ltlarrys, Sanslines's, and the few others who hold that circumcision is a public good, not a public harm. And our "evidence" and "facts" are never going to convince them."
================================================== =============

To read:

"Just as with abortion, the vintagecarguys, azgreens, TLCTuggers, richos and the rest are never going to present "evidence" and "facts" to convince us l2ltlarrys who hold that circumcision is a public good, not a public harm. And our "evidence" and "facts" are never going to convince them."

As for objecting to peoples' positions, I object to walter05's belief that it should be okay for religious people such as himself to practice circumcision because of their religion, but deny it - I guess he's agreeing with those who want to ban it - to those who wish to practice it for other reasons such as my own non-religious reasons.

I agree with him that it should not be banned because doing so would make him a criminal if he continued to practice his beliefs. But to discriminate against we who would do it for others reasons would, I believe, violate my First Amendment rights guaranteeing freedom of religion and from religion.

Obviously, many of his religion's practices from long ago have not been carried forward, but circumcision has. Up until very recently, circumcision has never been considered a public harm or a human rights violation; given its long history (and pre-history) and its generally favorable treatment by our society and others, I think it will be a very, very, very long time before the U.S.A.'s laws ban it.

And much like Prohibition against alcohol which did not work and bans against FGM which have hardly worked at all, I suspect that banning circumcision would work about as well.

People are perverse and I'm glad. Perverse in the sense of being stubborn, contrarian, politically incorrect, independent, and not very amenable to being told what to do. With perverseness, you push it in one place and it pops out somewhere else. As the Chinese man said, "You can make laws at the top and we at the bottom will figure out how to get around them."

I'm thankful for perversity. I'm thankful for people who refuse to let other people to do their thinking for them.

[l2ltlarry]

By vintagecarguy:
"Once again...WRONG!Some cut the clitoris,some far more,some just the hood which is exactly analogous to male circumcision.Of course ALL genital cutting of healthy children of BOTH sexes is WRONG!"

You and others on your side are asserting what you believe. It may be true to or for you but not true for me and others on the opposite side.

By vintagecarguy:
"ALL CUTTING OF HEALTHY CHILDREN'S GENITALS IS WRONG!"

"Lets not argue over degrees of wrong-----IT'S ALL repeat ALL WRONG!"

So you say. I don't agree.

[TLCTugger]

I agree with him that it should not be banned because doing so would make him a criminal if he continued to practice his beliefs

I disagree with him. It should be banned because letting him do it makes an innocent child an amputee.

[TLCTugger]

"IT'S ALL repeat ALL WRONG!"So you say. I don't agree.
So it's a matter of degree.

So you would vote for the repeal of the current FGM law? It prohibits even the single ceremonial pin-poke to a girl's hood.

It does not prohibit me from hiring a person who has done only one other circumcision in his life, and telling him: "Please take off about 90% of the penile skin so my baby boy is not tempted by sexual stimulation." Absolutely legal in broad daylight.

Protect boys too.

[Sanslines]

>>>
The laws and following them are precious and provide the foundation for much of what is done. Unless you can truly grasp that, which you can't if you don't live it, respecting those that do as equally intellligent and capable human beings with a right to live their lives as they choose is all that I ask.

If there is no creator, and we are wrong. We raise loving, honorable good families surrounded by love and purpose because of that belief. If I die and that is the end of it, I will regret nothing.

Very true. There are many individuals among us from the older generations who suffered and died due to their beliefs in their faith. Under extremely horrible circumstances that many of us will never understand, they did not renouce their faith and paid for their beliefs with their lives. Only those who have experienced extreme tests of their faith can understand this. Many from the younger generations have not had their faith tested in this way. They have not been put to an extreme test where they make a decision - renounce or deny their faith or continue to accept their faith regardless of the price that they will pay.

[Someone28]

You can't comprehend what it means to run your life based on the commands of our creator. Following commandments passed down for thousands of years. Commandments that your ancestors had to risk their lives, and too often lose their lives to preserve.

Knowing that the word "Pharoah" is an Egyptian word. Its pronounciation is derived from Hebrew because only the Hebrew text provides a pronounciation.

One knows that ancient Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Crusaders, the English at York, some of the early Moslems, Mongols, the Inquisition, pogroms, Chelmneiki and the Kazaks, the Czars, Nazi Germany, and the modern Islamic terrorist tried to destroy this faith. Yet, I can watch as my children follow it and have confidence that they will pass it on.

The laws and following them are precious and provide the foundation for much of what is done. Unless you can truly grasp that, which you can't if you don't live it, respecting those that do as equally intellligent and capable human beings with a right to live their lives as they choose is all that I ask.

If there is no creator, and we are wrong. We raise loving, honorable good families surrounded by love and purpose because of that belief. If I die and that is the end of it, I will regret nothing.

1: Actually, I can. My experiences may not be Jewish, but being at least somewhat religious, I did have my own faith tested of course when I started to become detached from the mainstream or the rest of my families ideals concerning it. There are commandments even in catholic teachings, often they are broken. I'm guilty of breaking quite a few. I've committed to some sins I consider to be rather bad. Life goes on, regardless. Based upon human nature I think it an impossibility to NOT break some of these things at some point in our lifetimes. As I said, I think God's expectations for us all were simply too high. I'm hoping he would be able to just laugh it off and understand, appreciating us all for the lovable failures of life that we are. I see no reason for someone to lose their life over protecting some old tradition, why can't we all just come to our senses to live and love the life we've been given. Rather than intentionally handicapping/restricting ourselves from some aspect of it? None should be forced to sacrifice themselves like that, I think it was just borderline stupidity that they did. I'm being perfectly honest here, and completely blunt with how I see it. Maybe it's too idealistic for you.

2: Watching with confidence is all that you can do for the time being IF they are still young and sheltered from the alternatives. I was much the same way, I never thought to question or anything of the sort and believed whatever my parents had always told me. The stork? Santa Clause? Easter Bunny? Tooth Fairy? Not anymore. I am only making a point of common sense here: IF your children are still young, you cannot reasonably say with 100% infallible certainty that in the future they will be exactly like what you expect them to be. It doesn't always work that way. There will probably be other attempts too. I won't speak on the behalf of any of them to the extent of what I think would happen to Judaism. The only real problem I have with that faith is how they insist on cutting their children. That's the end of it. MANY people feel this way. It isn't a direct insult to Judaism or anything of the sort, it's just... Human Rights, I value them more than faith I suppose.

3: I have already told you, I CAN understand, at least in concept and PAST experiences. I do respect Judaism but NOT what they do to innocent children. Even if they are their own. Much as you say there are fundamental laws in Judaism, there are also fundamental societal laws outside of it that have just as much real authority and very good reasons as to why they exist too. Those established laws WILL step in to mess with child custody and the like should something it deems to be inappropriate happen. I am only reminding you of this. I do not mean to imply that you would be abusive to children, in other ways besides circ at least. Which is my own opinion to start with, but it is still something to consider. I've already made a lot of entirely valid and good points here. I'm sure we can both agree on that much. If SOME Jews would be more reclusive, perhaps NOT outwardly promoting medical circumcision when obviously they have their own faith-based practices as a vested interest to consider, stressing only the "benefits" and never the downsides, I might be a little more complacent concerning them, but that's not the reality. There are some pro-circ advocates on the mainstream that are exactly like that example.

4: That still wouldn't change the fact that you have lived a life based on something imaginary, and also stripped yourself of a few life experiences you may have otherwise had in the process. You would have literally missed out on some things and even deprived a few others of that right. Call me negative for stressing the downsides.

Now to address some of the other points you made:

I am not in favor of outlawing it for medical reasons. Again, there may be valid reasons for it. I prefer to make sure that the parents are informed and trust them to make the best decision.

Allow me to rephrase myself, as that came out ripe with mistakes in the wording; I only meant that it should be outlawed in "medical" cases where there is no outright immediate need for it, otherwise it could merely be considered elective cosmetic surgery. Why shouldn't it be restricted when there is no immediate indication necessitating it? There may very well be SMALL benefits to getting cut in infancy, but there are also considerable risks, not the least of which are psychological. I am a living example of this, aren't I? I wouldn't want that done on my body as an infant by someone else without my consent anymore than I would NOW as a conscious grown individual. Sometimes I place more trust in the law than I would in parents... Is cutting someone "so he looks like his father" a valid medical reason? No, it is not. I wouldn't consider cutting for better hygiene either a truly valid reason even though it may have SOME merit. (Un)Common sense dictates that you don't hack off any other piece of your body to ensure it is clean. You WASH it. Same goes for cutting the child to prevent STD's, when he will not be exposed to those until YEARS after the fact. He is in no rush as a toddler to engage in sexual acts, now is he? Whatever preventative benefit it could have, there are also equal downsides. And some of THOSE downsides can be even worse than the benefits. You can't go back to being uncut. What part of this is not understood in people who proclaim nothing but good health? Think for a moment, please.

If those performing the circumcision failed to disclose the information so that an informed choice could be made, I would be in favor of that suit.

I would be opposed to a suit against the parents. Parents make many tough decisions for their childrend. I would like to keep the courts out of that.

That is all that I really am asking there. Make lawsuits for those aggrieved more accessible and not so out of place. As it stands now, cut men usually are just ridiculed for it. Esp by cut law authority and whatnot... It does have deep psychological ramifications. This is EASY to see. I don't mean to exaggerate, but on more base levels such as that? Yeah it does tend to get in the way or impede.

As for against parents... Usually, I will agree here. But for those thoroughly unreasonable and abusive few that are stubbornly set in their ways, downright disrespectful of their child's wishes, believe they have done no harm or refuse to admit to the fact, well... I think they are guilty as charged. Applies for both those of faith and without.

I agree with this statement. Over 3,721 years ago, Abraham was commanded to circumcise himself. He also circumcised his son Ishmael. (This is why Arabs circumcise their sons since many of them are descendants of Ishmael.) Over those millenia, there has been controversy over the operation. I expect that controversy will continue.

I believe that is part of the test of Orthodox Jews today. Continuing to follow a command from our creator even when there are those strongly against it.

On that account, time shall outlast ALL tests. Humans do not live for a very long time, Jews included in this without exception. We all rely on passing down knowledge from one generation to the next, however this system is not failsafe by any means. Consider the implications of this fact after a very long stretch of time. It's true that Judaism has been very enduring, but just as with all things subject to the whims of unending time, I don't think it's realistic to expect that it's streak won't eventually run out. Same goes for many other things. Others may have better chances of surviving or being accepted into our rapidly modernizing world, though.

I did teach in a Catholic school, but I am not Catholic. I can't intelligently comment on Catholicism. However, I will make what I think is a simple point. There are large numbers of Catholic priests, nuns, etc. Some of them are better listeners than others.

I am convinced that if you find the right one, you can ask your questions and get answers that you will understand better.

Your point? I can't either but I believe It's simple really: Just as you've said, some people, members of ANY faith, simply listen and consider things better than others within the same circle. This is known to me, it happens with any large group. I don't have much tolerance for Catholics that get all squeemish around a gay man. If god didn't want such things to exist, then doesn't it strike you as a bit odd that he would allow them in his grand scheme? Or maybe you're just going to bring up the whole "But he gave us free will, that's only a side effect and he can't be held accountable for the faults of man." argument. But you're telling me, that this omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being created a plan in which he probably, omniscience implying; KNEW, that this would result. I think he can be. If he didn't want it, why did he go through the trouble. Same thing with placing the foreskin there only to hack it off. Unless he's a mad God, I can't make any sense of these things. But I digress.

I pointed out family medical histories as a variable. If there is a strong genetic link to cancer of the penis, the risk for the baby could be greater.

I agree that there is a lot of misinformation. The least invasive medical procedure should be the one chosen.

However, as much as saying the circumcision is the treatment for all phimosis may be over simplified, it is also over simplified not to say that in certain casis, it may be the best treatment.

My wife had breast cancer. An entire breast was removed because of the cancer. It was the best way as part of the treatment to save her life. Given a choice between removal of a breast, a foreskin, or even the entire penis to save a life or death, and the removal of the body part is the best option.

1: Yes, this makes sense. Do you really think that getting rid of the foreskin alone is going to save his penis in that case? I would think it could turn cancerous from the inside or on other places. I prefer a wait and see approach. If it does develop, and on the foreskin itself, at least it can be cut away before it gets too severe. I'm not sure if this is an accurate thing to say, but I have heard that penile cancer affecting cut men tends to be MUCH worser off.

2: I'm in favor of this too.

3: Yes it is over simplified, and in those special rare cases I don't have any objections, just realize that more often than not, some of the arguments FOR circumcision that they make tend to be little more than inaccurate propaganda since it IS profitable to cut. Not so much to leave it be. It would be nice if even you pointed this out sometimes.

4: Quality of life, in some instances, then becomes a real big question/issue though. Being a rather... Uhmm, speaking frankly here: sexual type of person, I know I'd be damn depressed if I couldn't masturbate anymore. Hell, the thought that I may not be capable of my fullest potential for sensation depressed me severely at one point. It IS only the truth, however bad. I've accepted it because I am FORCED too in this era. Humane, right? Makes me want to spit on whoever started it all. Even God if that's the true case. I think I can understand where some atheists come from...

There are a lot of things that we don't know absolutely for sure but we become convinced of. I am aware of no other claim that 600,000 plus men, plus women, plus children received communication from the creator at one time.

Even when there were early revolts to Moses and the laws, it was on the basis that all were there together.

If in the earlier generations, say about 3,300 years ago, there had been claims of that what was recorded was false, why are they not recorded. We have recorded information on rebellions, worship of idols, etc. through out.

The text in the Torah has been faithfully copied. We are convinced of that because even when Jewish communities have been separated by hundreds of miles and empires, and there was no communications, the Torah scrolls are identical. (I will concede that there is one letter in question.)

Our scriptures and literature record the errors made by Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc. We know they were not super men. I think the fact that their flaws and mistakes are also recorded provides further evidence that fidelity to truth was more important than image.

Chanukah was and is a celebration not just of victory over the Greeks. There were a group of Jews that were Hellenized. They wanted to modernize the faith so that the Jews would blend in more. These Jews were some of the biggest opponents of circumcision at that time.

It is interesting that today, that then ancient and supposedly out dated Orthodox Judaism with circumcision is a living, breathing faith. The faith of the Greeks is dead.

A fundamental tenant of Orthodox Judaism is that the Torah contains instructions from our creator. If the creator wishes to modify those instructions, the creator will.

The idea that we do the will of the creator as told to us and that is how we fulfill our purpose and connect with the creator is the foundation of Orthodox Judaism.

Your question on circumcising a daughter is a fair question. If we allow one faith to keep it's ancient practices, why not others. Circumcising a clitoris is often comparable to removing an entire penis. It is usually a more dramatic operation. It is easy for me to see a difference between them. However, I concede this concern. I just don't find this conern out weighs allowing a faith to continue its practices that don't include female circumcision.

1: Because this is an irrefutable truth, it is thus one of our JOBS, as human beings, to question.

2: Well, I don't know. Who can know? Wisdom begins with the statement "I do not know." far as I am concerned. Yet some theists are so adamant in their positions as if they themselves have personally spoken to God, a being widely regarded as intangible and invisible in the literal senses. But then some say God acts through us... I suppose he is evil in some regards too then!

3: Interesting information from this point forward.

So then that would mean, in a sense Chanukah is a celebration against their own people? Or just that sect of Jews alone who were ultimately phased out... I'm by no means an expert on any of these things so feel free to clarify it for me.

4: Yes it is interesting, but like said before. Even if it is highly enduring, that still doesn't entitle it to be right. This may be mere word twisting on my part, but you could say at least in spirit some aspects of that old faith STILL yet live on to this very day. Those who decry cutting have that in common with them, don't they? Essentially a ghost from the past haunting modern Orthodox Jews.

5: Well, I guess then that it will NEVER be changed. If God's inaction thus far is any sign of things... Societal perception most probably will NOT follow that trend of inaction. How is it then that other faiths have found it in themselves to drop some of their more unacceptable practices? Well, if any. I've already told you that I lost interest as it's all a bunch of pointless repetitive jargon to me besides. But you can enlighten me as I'm willing to listen if only to better understand some things.

6: And what if it did? In your own stance, imagine for a moment that female cutting was permitted in Judaism. Would you condone it all the same? No matter how much of a difference you see, the basic concepts remain the same: Taking sharp surgical instruments to a minors genitalia. Usually against their will. That faith STILL follows that basic concept. Remove the concept from gender notions for a moment. Yes there is a difference between them in what is removed, but as I said the base concepts STILL follow the same trend and they just so happen to breech rights in a very similar manner. It's concerning to me because... It does void your moral high grounds. Makes you in no better of a position to talk than those who would still cut females.

Now to have a look over some of the more recent posters...

Two entirely different "cutting". Circumcision does NOT remove the penis. Female clitorectomies removes the entire clitoris. HUGE difference and should not be correlated with male circumision.

You miss the point that WE present. It is the SAME in terms of breaching that individuals human rights. You don't QUITE seem to get this fact. It can affect both in the exact same ways, negatively in terms of psychology. Women are no more special than men in this regard. The things removed may be different physically, but that is something quite irrelevant to the fact and a bit of a red herring when you consider how dissatisfied men cut in infancy can grow up to be to learn of how their body was violated against their will. EXACTLY LIKE A WOMAN'S PLIGHT. Show some empathy, please. The psychological harms associated CAN be correlated. It is not so huge a difference there. And as other posters have said, there are varying degrees of female circumcision. I hate to break it to you, but some actually aren't that damaging, much the same as is perceived of male circumcision. Have you done the research? By the way, the circumcised penis is actually PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE of certain forms of stimulation it would normally have with the foreskin intact which makes ALL the skin in general looser around the shaft. It should also be noted, that the male foreskin actually contains a number of nerves around 3 to 4 times higher than does the clitoris... You be the judge of which is worse, there. Finally, I do not mean to discriminate, but going by your gender icon... Why are you even in a debate like this?

I'm thankful for perversity. I'm thankful for people who refuse to let other people to do their thinking for them.

This is the most that we can hope for at the moment... I hope better ways to get back what is lost are developed, and soon. It isn't only in the interest of restorers, but people in accidents too or with illness.

EDIT:

Very true. There are many individuals among us from the older generations who suffered and died due to their beliefs in their faith. Under extremely horrible circumstances that many of us will never understand, they did not renouce their faith and paid for their beliefs with their lives. Only those who have experienced extreme tests of their faith can understand this. Many from the younger generations have not had their faith tested in this way. They have not been put to an extreme test where they make a decision - renounce or deny their faith or continue to accept their faith regardless of the price that they will pay.

Whose fault is this again? Bare human nature from what we can see all around us. I already said that I feel nobody should have to go through that, OR BE FORCED TO, for that matter.

[MoonShadow]

I know their percentages are a little off.
I have seen pictures of women with just the hood removed...
some rave about how wonderfull they think it feels and how they want to give the benefits of it to their daughters.
sounds awfully familiar doesn't it?
did you read this part??????
In some cases only the hood is removed.
WARNING>>>BELOW
stuff from pro-cutting clitoral hood site.



II. Medical Studies
To the best of my knowledge, there have been four medical studies of circumcision of the clitoral hood (prepuce). The earliest report concerns a procedure that does not actually remove the clitoral prepuce, but stretches it in such a way as to obtain the result that "It is seldom that the prepuce will overgrow again once it has been opened." The other three report on results obtained from the actual surgical removal of the clitoral prepuce. All four report a striking percentage of those who had the procedure done experience enhanced sexual enjoyment.

McDonald, C. F. "Circumcision of the Female." General Practitioner 18.3 (September, 1958). 98-99.
(Claims to have circumcised "perhaps 40 patients," including some adult women. Among the adult women who underwent the procedure, "Very thankful patients were the reward. For the first time in their lives, sex ambition became normally satisfied" [98].)

Rathmann, W. G. "Female Circumcision, Indications and a New Technique." General Practitioner 20.3 (September, 1959). 115-120.
(Sent out a questionnaire to women whose prepuces he had removed, and received 112 replies. Of the 72 women who reported having never experienced an orgasm prior to the surgery, 9 [12.4%] reported continued failure to achieve orgasm; 64 [87.6%] reported successful achievement of orgasm after the surgery. Of the 39 who reported achieving orgasm only with difficulty prior to the surgery, 5 [12.5%] reported no improvement; 34 [87.5%] reported improvement after the surgery. Rathmann provides a number of indications and contraindications for the surgery, and invented a new clamp for the procedure.

Wollman, Leo."Hooded Clitoris: Preliminary Report." The Journal of the American Society of Psychosomatic Dentistry and Medicine 20.1 (1973), 3-4.
(Provides a "Statistical analysis of one hundred cases." Not clear whether the statistics Wollman reports include all one hundred women [32 of whom were not circumcisedösee below] or a statistical report of those who were circumcised. In this study, he reports the frequency of sexual intercourse before treatment as 3 times per week on average; after treatment as 5 times per week on average. 49 women were able to attain orgasm prior to treatment; 92 after. 92 subjectively report improvement in intensity of sexual response, rapidity of sexual response, and/or greater number of orgasms; 7 subjectively report no change, and 1 subjectively reports being worse off. The longest time since treatment was 20 years; 64 patients were followed up after 5 years since treatment. The treatment occurred in Wollman's office 98 times; in the hospital [at patient's request] 2 times.)

_______. "Female Circumcision." The Journal of the American Society of Psychosomatic Dentistry and Medicine 20.4 (1973), 130-131.
(Reports on one hundred consecutive patients referred to him by psychoanalysts and clinical psychologists. "Sixty eight benefited by surgical female circumcision: of the remaining thirty-two, twenty-eight showed no need for this procedure; four refused to be treated by this technique.")

Crist, Takey. "Female Circumcision." Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality 11.8 (August, 1977), 77.
(Reports on Crist's circumcision of fifteen women, and provides a list of four conditions for when the surgery would be indicated: "a) they could achieve orgasm only by masturbation and/or oral sex, b) they could have orgasm in the lateral or female-superior positions only, c) they stated, "it feels good, I get there, but suddenly it's over," d) they had a positive cotton-tip test, where patients felt a distinct difference when a cotton-tipped applicator was applied directly to the clitoris when the foreskin was retracted as opposed to application to the foreskin" [77]. Crist's study concludes, "Patients who have undergone this procedure have generally commented that they have enhanced sexual response.")


Did you not notice the dates of these reports???? Much has been learned since then about FGM and most of these reports would be null and void as far as any accurate and substantial statistics today. And, btw, I know Takey Crist. He was fired by the university I use to teach at.

Do you have more recent information on FGM?

[Sanslines]

1: Actually, I can. My experiences may not be Jewish, but being at least somewhat religious, I did have my own faith tested of course when I started to become detached from the mainstream or the rest of my families ideals concerning it.

There are, or course, varying degrees of 'tests'. The ultimate test is to have a person's life threatened for no other reason then their religious beliefs.

I don't consider myself tested and I base my belief upon listening to the experiences of other individuals who suffered starvation, beating, torture, and ultimately the death of those around them.

[Sanslines]

Whose fault is this again? Bare human nature from what we can see all around us. I already said that I feel nobody should have to go through that, OR BE FORCED TO, for that matter.

The point that I was making is not whether someone should or should not go through 'that'. The point that I was making is that those who have gone through 'that' have a much different faith based relationship then those who have not. Those who experienced extreme tests of their faith understand faith in a way that those who did not go through such experiences can not.

[MoonShadow]

Very true, Sanslines.

Many whose faith has been "tested" are no longer of their former faith.

[Someone28]

Did either of you bother actually reading any of the other arguments I had posed? Or was it too TL;DR for you?

There are, or course, varying degrees of 'tests'. The ultimate test is to have a person's life threatened for no other reason then their religious beliefs.

I don't consider myself tested and I base my belief upon listening to the experiences of other individuals who suffered starvation, beating, torture, and ultimately the death of those around them.

Yes, you are correct here. Why anyone should have had that happen to them in the past is beyond my scope of understanding, but then again I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. Humans are a stupid race as a whole, after all.

I consider myself "tested" by modern day standards. That kind of thing simply doesn't happen anymore, (except in... I guess, extremely isolated hate crimes or the third world) a fact of which we should ALL be grateful for.

The point that I was making is not whether someone should or should not go through 'that'. The point that I was making is that those who have gone through 'that' have a much different faith based relationship then those who have not. Those who experienced extreme tests of their faith understand faith in a way that those who did not go through such experiences can not.

Fair enough, what you say there is true but why must that be pointed out? How is it relevant to today? I suppose you could say that about many things. You can't understand the pain I went through to discover I was cut against my will, unless you are me, for example. Nor why I speak out against it, using the same sentiments. Everybody is affected differently. This should be respected above anything else in a way where nobody is coerced into anything. That includes your kids...

Very true, Sanslines.

Many whose faith has been "tested" are no longer of their former faith.

Is this supposed to be some kind of subtle crack at me? I did say that I was more of an agnostic. At least with that position I can see the plain truth that both those theistic AND atheistic are subject to their own faults in how they reason through things. Don't think for a second that I exclude myself from this rule either. I don't.

You cannot prove your God, no matter how much you may wish to. You also cannot entirely disprove it... Most of the theories atheists point to don't account for the whole story of things, or are lacking in some insight.

I actually said that I wasn't entirely without faith. More than anything, you could say that I worship my own private ideal of God. A benevolent, all-loving and forgiveful God that created everything with a purpose behind it. Thus, one needn't pointlessly deface his creations, such as the foreskin. Nor discriminate against gays. OR impose his dogma upon others. You could say that I am simply sick to death of all the repetitive puritanical junk that some theistic minds spout off as 100% irrefutable truth. Consider that may be where some atheists come from as well for a moment. Those that just wish to live life as it is but theists annoy them to that point. It is also cute in my eyes how some theists may warn them of how they'll go to hell if they don't convert. They don't seem to understand that they don't believe in a hell to begin with... Just admit to the bare facts: Faith is only that, faith. Not truth. We know reality to be what it is. That's as far as real material understanding goes.

[Fuzzy Nuts]

I don't know why this controversy over a piece of skin!!!

[MoonShadow]

Is this supposed to be some kind of subtle crack at me? I did say that I was more of an agnostic. At least with that position I can see the plain truth that both those theistic AND atheistic are subject to their own faults in how they reason through things. Don't think for a second that I exclude myself from this rule either. I don't.

You cannot prove your God, no matter how much you may wish to. You also cannot entirely disprove it... Most of the theories atheists point to don't account for the whole story of things, or are lacking in some insight.



No, Someone, I was not referring to you. I was commenting to Sanslines.

[Someone28]

No, Someone, I was not referring to you. I was commenting to Sanslines.

Oh, my apologies then. That's fair.

I don't know why are this controversy over a piece of skin!!!

*Sigh* Because it isn't... (Or what is said about it, is misleading.) That's just the biased blanket terminology too often used to describe it. If you were better educated on it's purposes for being there and the mechanics it has in stimulation, then you wouldn't be calling it "just a flap of skin". Add that onto how usually the ones having it removed are infants. You've got a fine recipe for big controversy right there.

[l2ltlarry]

By Someone28:
If you were better educated on it's purposes for being there and the mechanics it has in stimulation, then you wouldn't be calling it "just a flap of skin".

Where did you get your education on this? Remember, I had a foreskin for 22 years. From my own experience, I know at least as much as you seem to know and probably a lot more. "Its purpose for being there?" That's purely speculation. How did you get so educated that you know its purpose? You might think you know, but I think all who think they know are only guessing.

"...the mechanics it has in stimulation,...?" From my experience with my foreskin versus my lack of a foreskin, that "reason" is seriously, seriously oversold.

Stimulation is every bit as easy or easier without it.

The people who have been educated to the point of becoming activists would be better off being more skeptical of their educators.

My experience with my foreskin was that it had extremely high nuisance value. It was absolutely unnecessary for stimulation. I don't get where people are coming from who think a covered glans is required for satisfactory sensitivity.

What I like about not having a foreskin is the wonderful automatic cleanness and the silky smoothness. Sticky doesn't get it for me. In addition, I like the look of foreskinless much better than foreskinned.

Last Sunday's 'Circumdecision' episode of 'til Death on TV featured Eddie's and Joy's neighbor, Kenny, debating about getting circumcised because his "girlfriend didn't like what she saw down there."

In one scene, Eddie, who's a Jew, is sitting up in bed with the covers up to his waist, while Joy is standing beside him getting ready for bed. Eddie lifts up the covers and says to Joy, "I know you haven't noticed lately, but I'm as cute as a button down there."

I'm with Eddie on "cute as a button". I suspect lots of other men all over the world are with Eddie also.

Fuzzy Nuts, the reason for the controversy is, some of us are not amenable to pro-foreskin people succeeding in banning cirumcision. Therefore, the fight.

[l2ltlarry]

Responding to TLCTugger post # 951 which responded to my post:

"IT'S ALL repeat ALL WRONG!"


Originally Posted by l2ltlarry
So you say. I don't agree.

So it's a matter of degree.

So you would vote for the repeal of the current FGM law? It prohibits even the single ceremonial pin-poke to a girl's hood.

It does not prohibit me from hiring a person who has done only one other circumcision in his life, and telling him: "Please take off about 90% of the penile skin so my baby boy is not tempted by sexual stimulation." Absolutely legal in broad daylight.

Protect boys too.

Yes, we don't agree; our positions are different.

From what I've read, the laws against FGM have hardly worked at all. So having the laws or not having them has made little difference. But I don't get to vote on it, so regardless of what I would do (I already stated my position before), it makes no difference. Millions of girls and women in many countries are still being subjected to genital cutting. Seems to me it's going to take something other than laws.


Please take off about 90% of the penile skin so my baby boy is not tempted by sexual stimulation.

You know very well that reducing sexual stimulation for either boys or girls is not an interest of mine.

Eros love is hugely important for human well-being (but FGM societies don't think so.) A while back, the 'Columbus Dispatch' newspaper carried a cover story titled "The Big 'O'. The 'O' was in red and covered half a page. The article said that orgasms are very important to both our mental and physical well-being.

I agree.

"90%"? Sounds like hyperbole to me.

It you were to prohibit circumcision to protect boys, how well would that work? I have very little confidence in bans working when there are people dedicated to seeing that they don't work (like FGM bans, which are not effective.)

[Sanslines]

I consider myself "tested" by modern day standards. That kind of thing simply doesn't happen anymore, (except in... I guess, extremely isolated hate crimes or the third world) a fact of which we should ALL be grateful for.



Fair enough, what you say there is true but why must that be pointed out? How is it relevant to today? I suppose you could say that about many things. You can't understand the pain I went through to discover I was cut against my will, unless you are me, for example. Nor why I speak out against it, using the same sentiments. Everybody is affected differently. This should be respected above anything else in a way where nobody is coerced into anything. That includes your kids...



Is this supposed to be some kind of subtle crack at me? I did say that I was more of an agnostic. At least with that position I can see the plain truth that both those theistic AND atheistic are subject to their own faults in how they reason through things. Don't think for a second that I exclude myself from this rule either. I don't.

You cannot prove your God, no matter how much you may wish to. You also cannot entirely disprove it... Most of the theories atheists point to don't account for the whole story of things, or are lacking in some insight.


Someone,

Yes, I read what you wrote above. The purpose of my posts are not to diminish your experiences. The point of my post is to demonstrate that faith does indeed play a roll in this controversial issue. There are those who have deep faith and will follow their religious commandments as best they can. Many people who do not have deep faith can not understand deep faith or the relevence to this issue. Those who have such faith can.

Certainly some people will dismiss religion and faith as being a non issue as far as circumcision is concerned. Yet, this only demonstrates that they do not understand the relevence of faith to this issue or what it really means to be faithful.

[Sanslines]

One of the biggest problems wit this controversial issue is that many men just do not understand what the fuss is all about. There are men who have foreskins and men who do not have foreskins. To each his own. The vast majority of men who either have or do not have foreskins do not have personal experience with the opposite condition and hence cannot compare having to not having a foreskin or visa versa.

Some men tend to promote the idea that men who have been circumcised are somehow mutilated or handicapped. Who really knows the actual percentage of men who believe this way.




Concernig a side issue to demonstrate the dilemna between faith and important decision making:

Organ Failure: http://www.slate.com/id/2223559/?gt1=38001

[Someone28]

By Someone28:


Where did you get your education on this? Remember, I had a foreskin for 22 years. From my own experience, I know at least as much as you seem to know and probably a lot more. "Its purpose for being there?" That's purely speculation. How did you get so educated that you know its purpose? You might think you know, but I think all who think they know are only guessing.

"...the mechanics it has in stimulation,...?" From my experience with my foreskin versus my lack of a foreskin, that "reason" is seriously, seriously oversold.

Stimulation is every bit as easy or easier without it.

The people who have been educated to the point of becoming activists would be better off being more skeptical of their educators.

My experience with my foreskin was that it had extremely high nuisance value. It was absolutely unnecessary for stimulation. I don't get where people are coming from who think a covered glans is required for satisfactory sensitivity.

What I like about not having a foreskin is the wonderful automatic cleanness and the silky smoothness. Sticky doesn't get it for me. In addition, I like the look of foreskinless much better than foreskinned.

Last Sunday's 'Circumdecision' episode of 'til Death on TV featured Eddie's and Joy's neighbor, Kenny, debating about getting circumcised because his "girlfriend didn't like what she saw down there."

In one scene, Eddie, who's a Jew, is sitting up in bed with the covers up to his waist, while Joy is standing beside him getting ready for bed. Eddie lifts up the covers and says to Joy, "I know you haven't noticed lately, but I'm as cute as a button down there."

I'm with Eddie on "cute as a button". I suspect lots of other men all over the world are with Eddie also.

Fuzzy Nuts, the reason for the controversy is, some of us are not amenable to pro-foreskin people succeeding in banning cirumcision. Therefore, the fight.

You're telling me it's "purely speculation" that it provides a covering for the glans? That it USUALLY would be entirely logical to assume that constant coverage would keep the skin and tissues underneath it more supple and sensitive? That it's entirely baseless to assume that with more tissue means more nerve endings? I do not mean to insult here, but please try not to be so stupid. I have looked at both sides. I've made my decision, based on my own life experiences too.

Yes, you may have had one, but you know something you're NOT accounting for here with this trite statement? It was YOUR OWN personal decision to have had it removed from you. Many do NOT get that choice, do not ever get to know it. This is why some are angry. They have perfectly valid reasons to be so. "Automatic cleanliness"? I hope you still wash that part, regardless. Okay, "In addition" YOU like the look of someone without more than with. That's fair, but don't for a second think that YOUR own personal testimony provides justification to sever it from infants. It is PURELY your own opinion that you like it this way better. Keep in mind that there are other uncut men who do not share it and happen to like what they have. As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Not a justification.

"...the mechanics it has in stimulation,...?" From my experience with my foreskin versus my lack of a foreskin, that "reason" is seriously, seriously oversold.

Stimulation is every bit as easy or easier without it.

I would, again, like to stress the fact here that it is your own preference. When you have something your entire life and have grown thoroughly used to it, I suppose it wouldn't be so special to you, would it? It makes sense, (There is even a saying... Those that have and do not know what they possess, those that don't and understand it's values.) but that still isn't grounds to cut infants and purge their future self-determination in the matter. Even if it isn't required for satisfactory stimulation, which is a truth among some individuals as you say. I ask that you accept that it doesn't apply to everyone. For me, personally, I find it irritating when my corona scrapes against looser undergarments for example. I don't like, nor want to be forced into such a position with that. However I doubt that would be the same if I still had that covering. I would like to wear looser, less constricting things, but for now with my state I have to wear tighter things to keep it all in place so scraping doesn't irritate. "Sticky doesn't do it for you." Well, that doesn't do it for me.

The people who have been educated to the point of becoming activists would be better off being more skeptical of their educators.

It's always good to question, (It's what brought me to my stance.) but the same thing goes for circumcision advocates. I've looked at a few of their studies done. In some of them, there are obvious flaws in the methodology that the reader could plainly see, if they have a keen eye for it. I don't care if I should be more skeptical, to be honest. (You're probably not caring much for what I say here to begin with, isn't that right?) Something was taken against my will when common sense indicates it should have been otherwise and that is reason enough for me. Blame our moronic state of existence.

Last Sunday's 'Circumdecision' episode of 'til Death on TV featured Eddie's and Joy's neighbor, Kenny, debating about getting circumcised because his "girlfriend didn't like what she saw down there."

In one scene, Eddie, who's a Jew, is sitting up in bed with the covers up to his waist, while Joy is standing beside him getting ready for bed. Eddie lifts up the covers and says to Joy, "I know you haven't noticed lately, but I'm as cute as a button down there."

I'm with Eddie on "cute as a button". I suspect lots of other men all over the world are with Eddie also.

As I have already stated, personal anecdote and testimony are not a sufficient enough reason to go around cutting parts off of babies bodies, no matter how much you feel it is. Let HIM choose. The male character of that TV show he asked was supposed to be a Jew, wasn't he? That shows it is already slanted in favor. Besides, why should a women EVER get the right to say "Oh, hmm, I don't like your penis. Sorry, it may be a deal breaker for me." If your girlfriend is ever so shallow, I would advise not bothering with her and subsequently dumping her. She should respect the man's body as much as he would respect hers. Men needn't go to such extreme lengths JUST to appeal to a woman's bias. That is sickening. It's just oppression of a different sort.

Fuzzy Nuts, the reason for the controversy is, some of us are not amenable to pro-foreskin people succeeding in banning cirumcision. Therefore, the fight.

And I cannot see why. We are not aiming to restrict grown men from their choices in the manner. Most of us are fine with that. Nor are we against when it is genuinely indicated for a bad medical condition. We are only saying that people should not be so shallow in general, and respect the natural form for what it is. The only thing we would like to see banned to my awareness is babies getting circumcised. Because A: It violates basic fundamental human rights. B: It deprives him of self-determination, due to lack of consent. and C: Most times there is no sufficient medical reason or justification for it. It is done for elective, cosmetic purpose only. I resent that my body was ever handled in such a flippant manner. Come on, when it comes down from a non-theistic angle, how could you NOT agree with at least some of these points? They're all valid more or less. Of course, you're still free to think as you will about it, just don't expect us to ever stop protesting either. As long as grown adults in life who; with their own power of choice, cut themselves, want to strip that choice from their son, we will continue to point out that it should be his choice alone as it was yours. Just because you didn't like it, doesn't mean that he automatically will.

Now for some of Sanslines points:

One of the biggest problems with this controversial issue is that many men just do not understand what the fuss is all about.

This is true.

There are men who have foreskins and men who do not have foreskins. To each his own.

The problem with this statement, is that most times it wasn't their own.

The vast majority of men who either have or do not have foreskins do not have personal experience with the opposite condition and hence cannot compare having to not having a foreskin or visa versa.

Again, true. Throw in an element of personal preference and you have a very confusing and disorienting mess from all sides. This is why I think choice should be respected above all... It can really hurt cut men who don't like their situation. They can't TRULY go back after all.

Some men tend to promote the idea that men who have been circumcised are somehow mutilated or handicapped. Who really knows the actual percentage of men who believe this way.

I don't think myself mutilated, since I am still capable of BASIC functions... But I do consider myself less than. But that's my own personal belief and I won't force it on others. If they like being cut, then good for them. I don't. More importantly than that, I am trying to get others to consider the outright problems involved with the infants rights.

[MoonShadow]

Let's do a poll here with all the men on this forum -- well, those of you who post anyway.

Let's say circumsion is NOT done at birth. How many of you would have it removed in later years?

[Someone28]

Let's do a poll here with all the men on this forum -- well, those of you who post anyway.

Let's say circumsion is NOT done at birth. How many of you would have it removed in later years?

I don't think a poll like that is going to be a reliable indicator of anything... I probably wouldn't, though.

[walter05]

"Just as with abortion, the vintagecarguys, azgreens, TLCTuggers, richos and the rest are never going to present "evidence" and "facts" to convince us l2ltlarrys who hold that circumcision is a public good, not a public harm. And our "evidence" and "facts" are never going to convince them."

As for objecting to peoples' positions, I object to walter05's belief that it should be okay for religious people such as himself to practice circumcision because of their religion, but deny it - I guess he's agreeing with those who want to ban it - to those who wish to practice it for other reasons such as my own non-religious reasons.

I agree with him that it should not be banned because doing so would make him a criminal if he continued to practice his beliefs. But to discriminate against we who would do it for others reasons would, I believe, violate my First Amendment rights guaranteeing freedom of religion and from religion.



I did say that making it illegal would make Orthodox Judaism illegal.

I have repeatedly said that I think complete and accurate information for and against should be provided to the parents and they should make the ultimate decision.

I just stated that as for my personal choice, I would not choose it for a son if not for religious consideration.

I am also concerned that there may be those choosing it due to incorrect information and pressure from doctors, some of whom may make money from the operation.

Under no circumstances do I want it illegal. I want information provided to the parents fair and unbiased and for them to make the ultimate decision and trust the parents and not the government.

[walter05]

Someone28;

First of all, I think our conversation got lost. However, I think we both respectfully stated our positions.

PM me if you have further comments.

Sanslines;

You made a lot of good points. However, I think we are well beyond the original topic.

I also wish no one had to die for their beleifs.

However, look at this thread. A lot of people have difficulty letting othes whose beliefs are different have them.

Please PM with specifics and we can continue.

Someone28;

I will agree with you on tests. Some people are tested with weatlh and others with poverty. All tests are not necessarily a matter of life and death.

If you are an agnostic as you say, I suspect a reason other than the tests. Too many people are unwilling to honestly answer questions and discuss beliefs.

If you encountered religious people who were offended by sincere questions honestly asked, I am sure that seemed closed minded and was a turn off.

If you have a question, please PM me.

Walter

[Someone28]

EDIT:

Someone28;

First of all, I think our conversation got lost. However, I think we both respectfully stated our positions.

It didn't get lost. I DID respond to you, skim back a few pages and you should see it.

I also wish no one had to die for their beleifs.

However, look at this thread. A lot of people have difficulty letting othes whose beliefs are different have them.

I believe I had read a few articles a while back where faith based circumcision has happened to "accidentally" kill some newborns or infect them with disease. That's quite a different way of dying for beliefs than what we are speaking of, isn't it? It's easy for the faithful to believe they have simply gone to heaven, but then there are those others who are of the mindset that they were pointlessly deprived of their one chance at life.

I like to think that humans have an innate sense of altruism and more often than not it is simply clouded... No doubt I could be perceived as being the "clouded" one in the eyes of those with faith based altruism, but it also offends my own sense of altruism that innocent children would be harmed in the name of a grown adults faith when it's quite possible that their kid might not share it when he grows up and it will all have been pointless and damaging. Either way you look at it, it is going to be unavoidably touchy and probably ripe with strife. And some would sooner settle to hide behind this statement in some farce of mutual agreement rather than question or change to better our existence as we know it. That is annoying to me. But I'll regrettably leave it at that for now.

If you are an agnostic as you say, I suspect a reason other than the tests. Too many people are unwilling to honestly answer questions and discuss beliefs.

If you encountered religious people who were offended by sincere questions honestly asked, I am sure that seemed closed minded and was a turn off.

Yes, there is a reason for it. But I would probably be able to better elaborate on if you asked it of me in more specific terms.

[walter05]

EDIT:



It didn't get lost. I DID respond to you, skim back a few pages and you should see it.

>>>

I am not sure I understand the response then. I am sorry if I am dense or missing something obvious.

<<<

I believe I had read a few articles a while back where faith based circumcision has happened to "accidentally" kill some newborns or infect them with disease. That's quite a different way of dying for beliefs than what we are speaking of, isn't it? It's easy for the faithful to believe they have simply gone to heaven, but then there are those others who are of the mindset that they were pointlessly deprived of their one chance at life.

>>>

There are circumstances when Jewish law prohibits circumcising a male. They all center around when the circumcision inadvertently results in the death of the male, adult or infant. Jewish law does not claim that there is no risk in circumcision.

One of the classic cases is if there were two brothers that were circumcised and both died as a result. Even if we have no idea of a cause, that is enough to prohibit the circumcision of a brother.

However, the incidence is extremely rare. There is probably a higher porportion of infants riding in cars getting killed than infants being circumcised. Regardless of the activity, we take the precautions we can and then trust that the best outcome will occur.

If the baby dies, then we have faith that this was what was planned. That is true even if there is great grief to work through.

Therefore, this is part of the test of circumcision but not what I meant by risking one's life.

Over the millenia, tyrants have said, observe the Sabbath on the seventh day, circumcise your boys, refuse to bow down to our deities, etc. and you will be killed. At times, the forms of death were quite cruel and included torture. Choosing to stand up for one's beliefs rather than live is what I meant by that type of test.

<<<

I like to think that humans have an innate sense of altruism and more often than not it is simply clouded... No doubt I could be perceived as being the "clouded" one in the eyes of those with faith based altruism, but it also offends my own sense of altruism that innocent children would be harmed in the name of a grown adults faith when it's quite possible that their kid might not share it when he grows up and it will all have been pointless and damaging. Either way you look at it, it is going to be unavoidably touchy and probably ripe with strife. And some would sooner settle to hide behind this statement in some farce of mutual agreement rather than question or change to better our existence as we know it. That is annoying to me. But I'll regrettably leave it at that for now.

>>>

Humans are different from animals. Most animals have an built in survival instinct. However, sharks, tigers, etc. are not known to kill just to kill.

Male animals, and some females, are known to have bloody fights over territory that usually involves mating rights. However, these rarely result in death.

A naked human in the wild by him or herself is easy prey for many predators. Sevaral humans together sharing their expertise and the risk are able to over power any predator. This mutual dependence is so important that the most valuable commodity to many humans, money, is a store of this value of contributions to our fellow humans well being.

This mutual dependence causes many of us to be afraid for there to be something wrong with us. Therefore, if someone is different from us, it can lead to bloody wars. In Africa, to this day, there are bloody massacres based on one group of men being circumcised and one not. We must learn not to be threatened by others' differences.

If we are not threatened by them, then we can celebrate them. I may be Jewish, but I enjoy southern American, Greek, Israeli, Chinese, Indian, Japanese, Italian, Mexican, Thai, and traditional Jewish foods. I would find my diet bland and unenjoyable if there were no other groups with wonderful traditional foods.

I have my ethnic background and traditions because our creator created me Jewish. Someone else may have his ethnic background and traditions because our creator created him as a Buddhist Chinese. I celebrate the differences that our creator intended.

<<<

Yes, there is a reason for it. But I would probably be able to better elaborate on if you asked it of me in more specific terms.

>>>

You stated that you were tested and failed and therefore became an agnostic. My understanding is that agnostics belief there may be a creator and master of the world, but are not sure yes or no. I believe that our creator wants a personal relationship with each and every one of us. In a true relationship, we have to come with our minds and hearts. If you are questioning, that is not a failure but perhaps an attempt to find the truth that will lead to that relationship.

I am not concerned with whether or not you are religious. That is between you, yourself, and your creator. I am concerned that you say you failed.

From my interaction with you on this forum, I can tell that you are thoughtful, caring, and sincere human being. You are too wonderful to be a failure.

If you have a deep question as I suspect, I want to be able to communicate with you one on one. That is because I don't want our conversation to be shouted down. In the process of answering others, we may get lost. One on one, that will not happen.

Walter

Walter

[l2ltlarry]

By Someone28:
You're telling me it's "purely speculation" that it provides a covering for the glans?

I wrote,
"Its purpose for being there?" That's purely speculation.
My point was, to say you know its purpose is purely speculation. We know its a covering, but as for knowing its purpose, how can you be sure?

By Someone28:
I do not mean to insult here, but please try not to be so stupid.

Because I do my research and thinking and arrive at different conclusions than you do, I'm stupid? Perhaps reading my posts a little more carefully would help. And perhaps not. We know we disagree on this issue, so possibly there's nothing I could say that would not strike you and those on your side as stupid.


And to whoever challenged MoonShadow -- I can't remember who -- for commenting in this thread with "Why are you here?" or words to that effect, why do you think she doesn't have a right to say what she thinks on this subject. Because she's a she and not a he?

My doctor's a she. Would she have a right to have a say on this topic?

To try to prevent anyone from having their say regardless of the topic seems to be counter to rules of free discussion, debate, and argument.

[Someone28]

Alright then, Walter. My next reply to you will be via PM.

My point was, to say you know its purpose is purely speculation. We know its a covering, but as for knowing its purpose, how can you be sure?

Yes, and my point was to go on and list a whole bunch of truths that are not speculation at all as an offered rebuttal. I was providing examples with which to debunk such sentiments. Regardless of the fact, we've both taken each other out of context there. It happens. How can I be so sure? Those seem like logical conclusions to me until proven otherwise. That will be difficult I think.

Because I do my research and thinking and arrive at different conclusions than you do, I'm stupid? Perhaps reading my posts a little more carefully would help. And perhaps not. We know we disagree on this issue, so possibly there's nothing I could say that would not strike you and those on your side as stupid.

Well, I was hoping that wouldn't have bothered you as much as it did, but since it seems to have grabbed the most attention out of my ENTIRE post, I apologize for it as it clearly wasn't appropriate. Satisfied? With that said, I hope you paid some attention to the rest of what I had posted. At least read it.

And to whoever challenged MoonShadow -- I can't remember who -- for commenting in this thread with "Why are you here?" or words to that effect, why do you think she doesn't have a right to say what she thinks on this subject. Because she's a she and not a he?

My doctor's a she. Would she have a right to have a say on this topic?

To try to prevent anyone from having their say regardless of the topic seems to be counter to rules of free discussion, debate, and argument.

That was me, and I will say it straight: Because as a woman, I don't think she would possess the insight as to what having a penis exactly entails or how it feels to someone. Plus, she was never at any risk of getting her clitoral hood (Not the clitoris; this would be the equivalent of male circ in the female most probably.) cut off at birth if she was born into a developed nation. It is probably thus more than a little easy for her to treat this as a fleeting issue and no deal to her if she supports it, but I don't think she has expressly stated her position yet so that is only an assumption. More than anything, those of the opposite sex who are ignorant to the problems of the other but still insist with sticking their nose into the whole mess bother me. But I'll reserve judgment until she has weighed in. I don't know her stance as I said.

[TLCTugger]

From what I've read, the laws against FGM have hardly worked at all. . . . Seems to me it's going to take something other than laws.

You could say the exact same thing about the crime of murder. That's no reason not have laws against it on the books.

Why do you say "something other than laws" when it would be just as easy to say "something in addition to laws."

In the African places which have curbed FGM it is mainly because they have found other ways for the people who who used to get paid to do the FGMs to earn a living - something beyond laws.

"90%"? Sounds like hyperbole to me.

Absolutely the truth that one COULD make a request to remove 90% of the boy's penile skin. Of course it rarely happens (on purpose) like that. Change the number to 10% if you like. It's still a monstrous thing to do or even ponder.

-Ron

[NudeTopher]

... but I don't think she has expressly stated her position yet so that is only an assumption. More than anything, those of the opposite sex who are ignorant to the problems of the other but still insist with sticking their nose into the whole mess bother me. But I'll reserve judgment until she has weighed in. I don't know her stance as I said.

You are unbelieveable. Since females don't have penises it annoys you that they have opinions on circ's. I suppose that you don't have, and have never voiced an opinion on abortion since similarly, you don't own a uterus!

To add insult to injury, you are witholding judegement just in case she agrees with you. Truthfully, you are too freakin' much. I have always believed that anti-circ zealots are a bit on the lunitic fringe. Of course, you wouldn't understand that I am a circ'd male who is very happy with my circ and wouldn't want to be any other way.

Additionally, I have never had a sex partner reject me for being circ'd. Yet, I know some (straight) females as well as gay/bi males who would not consider sex with an uncut male. You may say that's wrong. But, everbody is entitled to their attractions - young/older, fat/skinny, blond/red/brown, etc. The funny thing is, I've never, not once heard someone say that they would reject a male sex partner for his being cut.

The economy is in shambles, millions are either unemployed or about to become unemployed and quite possibly homeless, we are at war and could easily be at war on additional fronts - yet, you choose to worry about your foreskin. I don't know you, but even so I can say that you have way too much time on your hands, you are entirely too self-absorbed, and need to get behind a real cause!

[NudeTopher]

.

I may only be 25, but I have spent a great deal of time on various naturist boards as well as attending nudist swims, events, clubs, etc. On the boards, such as this, it always gets me suspicious when someone shows up and out of the blue jumps right into the middle of a controversial topic and ignores all of the other threads.

At this very moment, you have 16 posts on CFF. 15 of those posts regard circ and 1 erections. Am I the only one to see a connection here? Obviously, based upon your postings you are 100% peniscentric. Dr. Freud might have a word or two to say at that oberservation. Since you by and large ignore the threads regarding nudity, places to enjoy social nudity, etc. I question your actual motives for being here. I could be wrong, but I've gotten to be pretty good at sniffing out trolls.

[bobk]

Looks like this one got out of control.

[Someone28]

You are aware, that the topic could always be closed? Since these things never seem to turn into anything worthwhile but get people all riled up and throw out false accusations, that is probably for the best. I have no qualms against it.

You are unbelieveable. Since females don't have penises it annoys you that they have opinions on circ's. I suppose that you don't have, and have never voiced an opinion on abortion since similarly, you don't own a uterus!

Yes, that is not only correct, but ENTIRELY so. I've not participated in the abortion debate. You have only my word of course, but I speak what I personally know to be truth on my part. That's just me. That wasn't even a thorough explanation of why I thought that way, though. It's kind of similar to how a woman would consider a man who judged her based on appearance to be shallow and unworthy of her committed time. I just dislike shallow woman. That is all. If they are going to comment or formulate an opinion, all I hope, and ask for, is that they think VERY carefully about it even if the matter doesn't directly concern them. I would do the same were I to comment on abortion.

To add insult to injury, you are witholding judegement just in case she agrees with you. Truthfully, you are too freakin' much. I have always believed that anti-circ zealots are a bit on the lunitic fringe. Of course, you wouldn't understand that I am a circ'd male who is very happy with my circ and wouldn't want to be any other way.

Actually, no. She DOES have a right to her own opinion. I was withholding judgment until she has fairly weighed in on the matter. Not in case she agrees. You're assuming I would automatically brand her or something. Also, it is fine that you are happy with what was done to you. I am not. I maintain my position that it should not be forced on infants regardless.

Additionally, I have never had a sex partner reject me for being circ'd. Yet, I know some (straight) females as well as gay/bi males who would not consider sex with an uncut male. You may say that's wrong. But, everbody is entitled to their attractions - young/older, fat/skinny, blond/red/brown, etc. The funny thing is, I've never, not once heard someone say that they would reject a male sex partner for his being cut.

Yes, everybody is entitled to their own OPINION, but I would stress that's all it is. Still not grounds to be depriving choice. How some of the pro-circers find this to be a justification to cut babies brings up questionable psychology to me as well.

The economy is in shambles, millions are either unemployed or about to become unemployed and quite possibly homeless, we are at war and could easily be at war on additional fronts - yet, you choose to worry about your foreskin. I don't know you, but even so I can say that you have way too much time on your hands, you are entirely too self-absorbed, and need to get behind a real cause!

You're telling me alone, one single person in this enormous world, to get my priorities straight or change my cause? No, there are MANY people in the world, more than enough to go around to dispense their focus on any single issue. I have chosen this to be mine for now. If you are of that mindset, well... Then just blame human stupidity. It is endless. NEITHER of us are an exception.

I may only be 25, but I have spent a great deal of time on various naturist boards as well as attending nudist swims, events, clubs, etc. On the boards, such as this, it always gets me suspicious when someone shows up and out of the blue jumps right into the middle of a controversial topic and ignores all of the other threads.

At this very moment, you have 16 posts on CFF. 15 of those posts regard circ and 1 erections. Am I the only one to see a connection here? Obviously, based upon your postings you are 100% peniscentric. Dr. Freud might have a word or two to say at that oberservation. Since you by and large ignore the threads regarding nudity, places to enjoy social nudity, etc. I question your actual motives for being here. I could be wrong, but I've gotten to be pretty good at sniffing out trolls.

You're accusing me of being a troll and peniscentric? Yup, let's all judge by first impressions. Whatever. I'm surprised you haven't yet done the same to TLCTugger over there. I mostly lurk, and I saw this topic and decided to voice an opinion because as you say, it is very controversial and controversy can bring out the worst in some. If you dislike it, that's your own problem. I don't mean any offense.

I do have a genuine interest, but you can't deny the reality for what it is at the same time. There are those happy, that's fine. But there are also those unhappy. What are they to do? I've already said, I do appreciate the body. However, I appreciate EVERY aspect of it, and it offends me as a cut male that the foreskin is too often treated like garbage. Literally. Why is it SOOO difficult to ask that the rights of infants be respected to determine for themselves what they want to do with their own body... That angers me, but that's all I'll say for now.

As a final word... Truthfully, you are too freakin' much. I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you.

[azgreen]

I know men who rave how great it is to be totally bald all the time 24-7. I personally find it repulsive. But it is their choice. A true advocate of the total shaved look could have electrolysis done to his son, or daughter, because he believes it is best way to be or look. The child would never have hair on one's head again. That child could grow up, realize he/she was permanently altered against his/her will and resent it.
That is essentially what happens with circumcision of babies and children. All the rationalizations one may do about how much he likes being stripped of a foreskin are meaningless, because simply IT HAS TO BE THE CHOICE OF THE OWNER OF THE BODY STRUCTURE, the foreskin in this case. Nothing less. How simple do we have to make this argument to make you all understand so basic a concept?

[l2ltlarry]

By azgreen:
How simple do we have to make this argument to make you all understand so basic a concept?

It is not that we don't "understand so basic a concept."

It's that we don't agree with the concept. We (or I) don't agree. We don't (or I don't) buy giving human rights to this extent to babies. It's never been done in the past and we (or I) aren't for it now.

I hope that's simple enough. There is no amount of argument that can make us "understand" because we do understand what you are saying. But we do not agree. Not agreeing shouldn't be hard to understand.

As for babies having human rights -- newfound legal rights -- that gives governments too great say in how our children are to be raised. I oppose that.

Where I grew up and lived for a long time, the rule was, if your neighbor needs help, you help him, but otherwise you leave him alone. Meaning, you don't stick your nose in other families business unless egregious harm is being done in their household. Circumcising baby boys does not constitute harm, in my book.

Obviously your book and my book are not the same. You mission is to force me to agree with your book. That's probably not going to happen.

[l2ltlarry]

By TLCTugger:
Change the number to 10% if you like. It's still a monstrous thing to do or even ponder.

Monstrous to you but not to me.

I know you are working as hard as you can to convince people. I'm not convinced.

[Sanslines]

How much does circumcision cost

Cost really varies by region and by the way they do it, and of course, by doctor. You could be completely put to sleep or they could just numb it and you'd be awake. We could say it's as cheap as $500 while some places are as expensive as $2,000. Medical procedures nowadays are expensive. That's not including the weeks you'd be in pain and wouldn't be able to have sex or masturbate.

If you have a tight foreskin or sensitivity issue that's concerning you, see the following link on how to fix it without circumcision:
http://tinyurl.com/3b8zaf (http://tinyurl.com/3b8zaf)

Otherwise, make sure you research it well. It's a permanent surgery that cannot be reversed, and it does carry risks. Below is some research from medical studies and statistics that should help you.

Circumcision is a traditionally Jewish and Muslim surgery, although it was introduced and encouraged to the Western, developed world (North America and Europe, but especially the USA) as a way to stop masturbation, especially with the help of Dr. Kellogg. (see link 1) However, although scientific studies have discovered that circumcision harms masturbation by up to over 60% (2), needless to say, it doesn’t completely stop masturbation. Many circumcised guys just find it more convenient to use a lube like KY or lotion as a result (3) since the typically moist foreskin (like the eyelids) is not there to rub the head of the penis with (4).

Most developed nations quickly rejected circumcision after noticing its ineffectiveness against masturbation (they were quite religious back then!), and as a result the United States remains the last developed nation doing it to a significant percentage of newborns. (5) This was done as a result of the for-profit American health care system promoting myths about benefits of circumcision (6), such as preventing penile cancer (6a, 6b), preventing HIV (6c, 6d) despite the USA being the developed nation with the highest HIV rates and circumcision rates (6e, 5), and preventing STDs (6d, 6f). As a result, circumcision now brings in hundreds of millions of dollars to doctors and the American health system. (7)

However, circumcision has been becoming less popular as years have passed by. In the 1960s over 90% of guys were circumcised in the USA, now circumcision rates are as low as 14% in some states. (8) More and more parents are discovering that circumcision carries more risks than benefits, and realize that by leaving their sons uncircumcised, their sons have the choice of choosing what they’d like, since the surgery is irreversible (you can't go back if you don't like it or if it goes wrong).

Circumcision risks include the loss of sexual pleasure according to multiple studies (2, 9, 10, 11). Those studies take into effect many sensation points, including the foreskin, and they involve many participants. There have been other studies that claim no difference, but they don’t even take into effect the nerve endings on the foreskin, which as seen in one study, are some of the most sensitive points on the penis (10). One study even found an increase in erectile dysfunction rates after circumcision (10a). In another study, it was found that females ended up reaching orgasm with and preferring uncircumcised males in 9 out of 10 cases (10b). In addition, circumcision is extremely painful on newborns (12, 13, 14), and you risk many bad conditions, such as a buried penis when too much foreskin is removed and limits the size of the penis (15), or adhesions or skin bridges that develop from the head to the shaft when the skin heals after the surgery (16), meatal stenosis [occurs in up to 10% of circumcised males!] when the opening of the penis becomes irritated from too much exposure and rubbing and begins to close up (17), and meatal ulcers (18). All those risks are, of course, not including the possibility of having too much skin removed, which can cause discomfort during erections due to lack of skin to allow the penis to expand, and could consequently cause a hairy penis by pulling pubic hair and skin to the shaft. Often a circumcision scar develops around the penis after circumcision. In addition, circumcision has negative effects on breastfeeding. (18)

To conclude, here is a link that describes the anatomy of the foreskin (19) and the development of the foreskin with infants, a link especially helpful for parents (19a). Ultimately, one survey found that although uncircumcised guys are a bit more satisfied percentage-wise, it’s within the margin of error. (20) The only difference is that those unsatisfied uncircumcised guys can simply get circumcised and end up satisfied either way. If you're cut or uncut and happy, you'll say that side is better. If you got cut later in life, you'll say cut because you had problems with your foreskin before. If you're cut and had something go wrong or wish to have had a choice, then you'll say uncut. One survey found that up to half of circumcised guys wished to have had the choice themselves (as in, been left uncircumcised and they could have chosen to get circumcised if they wished later on in life). That's a huge number. (21) That, along with the risks and negative effects that are being seen more with the help of the Internet, may be what is bringing down circumcision rates.
Source(s):

Sources links are at the bottom of the following web page to save space:
http://tinyurl.com/37fdz6 (http://tinyurl.com/37fdz6)

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071007010715AA2exiy

[l2ltlarry]

By Someone28:
You are aware, that the topic could always be closed? Since these things never seem to turn into anything worthwhile but get people all riled up and throw out false accusations, that is probably for the best. I have no qualms against it.

Here we go again. You haven't been here long enough to know the history of Clothesfree's threads, but over and over again, people who don't like other people talking about things they don't want them talking about have argued and lobbied for particular threads to be closed. If you go back in this one, I think you'll find people trying to kill this discussion. Sometimes those I call the "stymie, stifle, and squelch" people have succeeded in killing the threads they don't like. So far they haven't killed this one.

If I were promoting or marketing Clothesfree, I would want to keep highly active threads like this one going. At least topics which people are passionate about don't grow stale and dormant, as so many other threads do.

Being human, as most of us are, we have interests. What's so incredibly wrong in discussing those interests? If your interests are in something else, then have at it. I'm not interested in lots of topics in Clothesfree. In those cases, I don't inject myself. To me, that's just good manners. I don't feel the need to try to control other people.

[Sanslines]

Advice to a 15 year old considering having circumcision surgery:

Not sure how much it costs but why do you want to get it done. It's not dirty, doesn't smell if you wash it each day and its natural to have a foreskin. If you are not having a problem with it then why remove it. check out the links below for the facts and not lies that some people tell.

In the end if you want to get it done when you are an adult then that is your choice to make as an adult. just make sure that you have all the facts before you get it done.
Source(s):

being natural and info about it
about the natural penis http://www.hachettebookgroupusa.com/book… (http://www.hachettebookgroupusa.com/books/70/0446678805/chapter_excerpt15690.html)

Foreskin anatomy and function (keeps the glans soft and protects it, http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/ ........... http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/

female partners of natural men enjoy sex more http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/… (http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/60750.html)

reasons not to get circumcised http://www.circumstitions.com/Functions.… (http://www.circumstitions.com/Functions.html)

http://www.asstr.org/~Kristen/learning/u… (http://www.asstr.org/~Kristen/learning/uncut.htm)

Governments and hospitals no longer recommend it http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0… (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22227225-2862,00.html?from=public_rss)

Circumcision = loss of sensitivity study http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2855… (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,285532,00.html...........) http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.… (http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html#sorrells)

Circumcision is extremely painful. http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/pl… (http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/plastibell/) http://www.notjustskin.org/en/circumcisi… (http://www.notjustskin.org/en/circumcisionfaq.html)

The USA is the last advanced nation doing it, but rates have fallen down from over 90% in the 1960s to as low as 21% here in California currently. From CNN: http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/U… (http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/staterates2004/)

Worldwide circumcision rates http://www.circumstitions.com/Maps.html

And discussion of common circumcision benefit myths and discussion of all the risks that can develop over time and negative side effects (buried penis, meatal stenosis, etc): http://forums.govteen.com/showpost.php?p… (http://forums.govteen.com/showpost.php?p=3069995&postcount=2)

More circumcision info http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

Video of a baby getting circumcised http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmX6RdRNo… (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmX6RdRNoqk)

getting circumcised does not necessarily stop penile cancer http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/conten… (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_2X_Can_penile_cancer_be_prevented_35.asp)

more info http://www.icgi.org/information/full-dis… (http://www.icgi.org/information/full-disclosure-informed-consent/)

Links to guys questions that have had a circumcision problem http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;… (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Amf8E40ue1fnoXa4HQiGYj7axQt.?qid=200708 05203259AAw5l9k) ..........

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?… (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070914002214AAHQQVi&r=w&pa=FZptHWf.BGRX3OFMiT1dUQe3rrrnn_JmKriU9oWJP1rfZGU QiToLGj71XHYy.BElmV6KWApe2vFmOtBu3g--&paid=answered#TMErWDHtVjCSQCEO9kHaGf9TtdHqpq7t.Emz 8k4WJcTWMG2wBgQ9)

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;… (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjEXyd1S7q8AYIz.YT7HKbLaxQt.;_ylv=3?qid =20070923223349AA6Y4Ht)

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;… (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AusNPIwXgzuBs.9oj.S_5gLsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid =20071001073713AAPcIws&show=7#profile-info-AA11153140)

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;… (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhQWO38UWBIIO5TOedV507baxQt.;_ylv=3?qid =20071001153203AASEgsL)

[Someone28]

It's that we don't agree with the concept. We (or I) don't agree. We don't (or I don't) buy giving human rights to this extent to babies. It's never been done in the past and we (or I) aren't for it now.

I hope you realize the BLATANT contradictions in that statement. There are numerous conditions in law where a child is NOT to be touched with alteration. Period. In that sense, yes, it already HAS happened that children are protected, at least to some extent. This matter shouldn't be any different.

As for babies having human rights -- newfound legal rights -- that gives governments too great say in how our children are to be raised. I oppose that.

And many are for it because some just don't seem to understand. It's a simple guideline: Do not strip rights unless there is an immediate need. That's as far as it goes, anything else should be fair game within reason really. Hope you're prepared for a long fight, because we won't back down or stop trying. :p

EDIT:

Here we go again. You haven't been here long enough to know the history of Clothesfree's threads, but over and over again, people who don't like other people talking about things they don't want them talking about have argued and lobbied for particular threads to be closed. If you go back in this one, I think you'll find people trying to kiil this discussion. Sometimes those I call the "stymie, stifle, and squelch" people have succeeded in killing the threads they don't like. So far they haven't killed this one.

Fine, let the endless debate continue, then.

[l2ltlarry]

By NudeTopher, responding to Someone28:
At this very moment, you have 16 posts on CFF. 15 of those posts regard circ and 1 erections. Am I the only one to see a connection here? Obviously, based upon your postings you are 100% peniscentric. Dr. Freud might have a word or two to say at that oberservation. Since you by and large ignore the threads regarding nudity, places to enjoy social nudity, etc. I question your actual motives for being here. I could be wrong, but I've gotten to be pretty good at sniffing out trolls.

I have 250 posts and you could probably say the same thing about me. If the posts which I lost when Clothesfree changed their system were still in my tally, my posts would number about 400. I read many of the topics, but respond to only a few. In the past, back closer to when I first joined, there were more topics that grabbed my interest and more people who invested lots of their time to make Clothesfree a fun, informative, vibrant place to socialize. Many people back then were "characters" whom I liked very much. Sadly, for whatever the reason, many are gone.

Anyway, "peniscentric"? There are probably just a miniscule number of men all over the world who are not peniscentric. It's not politically correct to say that but Dr. Archibald Hart's books give cover to men who are able to say what is rather than what is expected.

It's a joke, which one of Dr. Hart's studies comes close to reproducing, which says "98 percent of the men in the world admit to masturbating, and the other 2 percent are lying."

I think nearly all men love their penises. What's wrong with that? Better to love them than to hate them.

I, too, mostly ignore the same threads you accuse Someone28 of ignoring. I'm not a social nudist and therefore find most of those kinds of discussions uninteresting. As probably most people do, I pick and choose among topics. As for Dr. Freud, I don't too much care what he thought. Surely we have sufficient brainpower to figure things out for ourselves. Why do we need his labels? People are bigger and too complex for labels to be very useful.

[l2ltlarry]

By Someone28:
Hope you're prepared for a long fight, because we won't back down or stop trying.
I know. That's why I'm here.

In one of Chuck Swindoll's radio sermons, he said "It's important to know your enemy at least as well as you know yourself." Sounds like something Sun Tsu said originally. I've always believed that. When I'm in a fight, I want to know my opponents as well as I know myself. That's why this forum is so important to those of us who oppose banning and prohibiting. It's important to have the anti-circumcision advocates thoughts, tactics, and activities out in the open on a board such as this.

[Someone28]

I think nearly all men love their penises. What's wrong with that? Better to love them than to hate them.

I can admit to this. Although, I would probably like mine better if it did not have a few problems and wasn't... Well, you know. Could explain part of why it disturbs me so greatly.

In one of Chuck Swindoll's radio sermons, he said "It's important to know your enemy at least as well as you know yourself." Sounds like something Sun Tsu said originally. I've always believed that. When I'm in a fight, I want to know my opponents as well as I know myself. That's why this forum is so important to those of us who oppose banning and prohibiting. It's important to have the anti-circumcision advocates thoughts, tactics, and activities out in the open on a board such as this.

Hmmph. I am only one, and would thus serve as a poor example for the many. I have my own mindset, my own unique thought patterns. Similarly, others besides my self against it will raise their points in different lights as they best see fit. Know your enemy? The same sentiments go for those in favor.

[l2ltlarry]

By Sanslines:
Advice to a 15 year old considering having circumcision surgery:

Not sure how much it costs but why do you want to get it done. It's not dirty, doesn't smell if you wash it each day and its natural to have a foreskin. If you are not having a problem with it then why remove it. check out the links below for the facts and not lies that some people tell.

In the end if you want to get it done when you are an adult then that is your choice to make as an adult. just make sure that you have all the facts before you get it done.

Again "facts" and "lies". Like Cyndiann in the days of old, everything she said was fact and truth, and everything I and others said was just our opinion. As many of my opponents often point out, "It's anecdotal." Well, it's always going to be anecdotal. The largest studies in the world will finally come out to be anecdotal, because the people driving any particular study have their missions and agendas, just like I do, just like you do, and just like everybody does. So we're all armies of one. "Give people all of the facts and let them make up their own minds." Fact-givers and advice-givers are agenda-driven too. As Carolyn Hax, my favorite relationship columnist said recently, "You would be wise to be skeptical of all advice-givers. They all have their missions and agendas which they are trying to accomplish, and they're using you to do it."

Several people who are anti-circumcision have said they are accepting of guys going ahead with circumcision when they are of age, which they specify as 18.

Why 18? In some states, the age of consent is younger that that. Kids get their drivers licenses at 16.

One thing I see happening with kids like your 15-year-old advisee is the Internet outracing all of the laws that politicians can put in place.

In Season One, Episode 3 of Nip/Tuck, Matt, the 17 year-old son of one of the Nip/Tuck doctors and nephew of the other doctor wanted to be circumcised because his girlfriend didn't want to have sex with him after she saw he was uncircumcised. Also the kids in the locker room were teasing him. Matt asked his Mom and Dad if he could be circumcised and he got the same answer you gave the 15-year-old.

Matt then attempted to circumcise himself but failed. He had gotten bad information on self-circumcision from one of the farcical how-to websites. After he had cut himself with cuticle scissors and was bleeding, his Dad and uncle decided the only way to treat it was to finish the circumcision.

With the several self-circumcision devices now available on the Internet and Internet instructions on how to use them, no boy who wants to be circumcised will ever have to wait until he is "of age". And I'm certain that making your own clamp that closely approximates the several clamps available from manufacturers is a very simple task.

Like Matt, I had tried to do what he did when I was 12 or 13 or so and I failed, but not as badly as Matt did. Knowing what I know now, it would have been very simple.

The information age and the Internet is a wonderful thing. People are no longer captives to the powers-that-be.

Why did the 15-year-old want it done? Maybe for the same reason I wanted it done. Because I wanted it done. Everyone talks about how easy it is to keep clean. That's a flip answer. Not true for me and probably others like me. I had a skin condition which, on doctor's orders, prevented me from bathing or showering more often than every two days. Combined with extremely rapid smegma buildup and allergy to soap on my glans, it almost always smelled bad, looked bad, and itched almost all the time. Plus I did not like the look of a foreskin even a little bit. I liked having the head exposed and I wanted it that way all the time.

Waiting until adulthood to get circumcised presents another hump to get over. The embarrassment factor. For myself, going to get circumcised at age 22 takes a lot of courage to get over the embarrassment. I think the anti's probably hope that if kids are left uncircumcised until adulthood, the courage it takes to get it done then will keep them from ever getting it done.

[l2ltlarry]

By Someone28:
Know your enemy? The same sentiments go for those in favor.
The term "enemy" is not meant to say, personal enemy. It's meant to say, political opponent. Circumcision, like abortion, is a political issue. As such, the fight for both rightly is fought on the political battlefield.

[K1396]

Yes, I am and glad about it too. So there is my 2cents worth. I believe that this tread, now at 100 pages, has gone on long enough. We'll never settle who is right and who is wrong, so let's bury it now.

[Someone28]

Again "facts" and "lies". Like Cyndiann in the days of old, everything she said was fact and truth, and everything I and others said was just our opinion.

No, what I say will unavoidably be an opinion. What you say, will also be nothing more than opinion. I hope we are both understanding enough of this?

As many of my opponents often point out, "It's anecdotal." Well, it's always going to be anecdotal.

Yes it is, exactly like how your preference for being cut is anecdotal too. It's anecdote all around.

The largest studies in the world will finally come out to be anecdotal, because the people driving any particular study have their missions and agendas, just like I do, just like you do, and just like everybody does. So we're all armies of one. "Give people all of the facts and let them make up their own minds." Fact-givers and advice-givers are agenda-driven too. As Carolyn Hax, my favorite relationship columnist said recently, "You would be wise to be skeptical of all advice-givers. They all have their missions and agendas which they are trying to accomplish, and they're using you to do it."

Well, if I am being somehow "used" to protect rights, can't say that I mind it none.

Several people who are anti-circumcision have said they are accepting of guys going ahead with circumcision when they are of age, which they specify as 18.

Why 18? In some states, the age of consent is younger that that. Kids get their drivers licenses at 16.

So you would prefer lowering the age of consent? It could probably happen at any time of course, just so long as the individual understands fully what it entails. But I would think it would make better sense after all regions of the brain are fully developed, just me. Teens are prone to making riskier decisions than most...

One thing I see happening with kids like your 15-year-old advisee is the Internet outracing all of the laws that politicians can put in place.

Hmmph. Maybe that's for the better. Nowadays, politics just look like professional wrestling with fanciful words to me. Then, you can always wonder why it is that so many people are more concerned with watching American Idol...

In Season One, Episode 3 of Nip/Tuck, Matt, the 17 year-old son of one of the Nip/Tuck doctors and nephew of the other doctor wanted to be circumcised because his girlfriend didn't want to have sex with him after she saw he was uncircumcised. Also the kids in the locker room were teasing him. Matt asked his Mom and Dad if he could be circumcised and he got the same answer you gave the 15-year-old.

Should the parents have been fawning over his request and immediately heading out to circumcise him just for that? I think they were justified in telling him that nothing is wrong with it. Especially, since I would characterize that girlfriend as being of an exceedingly shallow and narrow mind. Of course, it's always good to listen. That includes if he does want himself cut.

Matt then attempted to circumcise himself but failed. He had gotten bad information on self-circumcision from one of the farcical how-to websites. After he had cut himself with cuticle scissors and was bleeding, his Dad and uncle decided the only way to treat it was to finish the circumcision.

Well, I suppose they should have listened better and saw the signs, shouldn't they? Any damages the teen inflicted upon himself are now his fault alone. Quite a tragic story. But if that's really what he wanted, then fine. Just don't force it on anybody else... That's what we're asking here. Not to outlaw it completely.

With the several self-circumcision devices now available on the Internet and Internet instructions on how to use them, no boy who wants to be circumcised will ever have to wait until he is "of age". And I'm certain that making your own clamp that closely approximates the several clamps available from manufacturers is a very simple task.

With no anesthetic? You can create the clamp, yes, but what would you use to kill the pain once a boy goes on to do it in private like that? I'm sure it would sound VERY odd and suspicious if he asks his parents for painkilling meds out of nowhere. This is another way circumcision harms. Our culture throwing insecurities on the intact encouraging them to go on with things like this.

Like Matt, I had tried to do what he did when I was 12 or 13 or so and I failed, but not as badly as Matt did. Knowing what I know now, it would have been very simple.

Sorry to hear that. You should have gotten proper attention for something like that. But what's done is done. I don't know what point is trying to be made here, though. The same thing happens but in the reverse situation. A cut man can learn of what was done, and then turn severely depressed. Irrational actions and behaviors can occur as a result. I am guilty of this.

The information age and the Internet is a wonderful thing. People are no longer captives to the powers-that-be.

Not completely. Laws still exist, and if broken, you can bet authority will attempt to track you down if you get into such a position. But otherwise, yes I agree.

Why did the 15-year-old want it done? Maybe for the same reason I wanted it done. Because I wanted it done. Everyone talks about how easy it is to keep clean. That's a flip answer. Not true for me and probably others like me. I had a skin condition which, on doctor's orders, prevented me from bathing or showering more often than every two days. Combined with extremely rapid smegma buildup and allergy to soap on my glans, it almost always smelled bad, looked bad, and itched almost all the time. Plus I did not like the look of a foreskin even a little bit. I liked having the head exposed and I wanted it that way all the time.

Yes, well, you got your choice at least. That can be respected. I can't respect being deprived of mine. You say you had a skin condition? Well, I guess for you it wouldn't have been so easy to clean. But like I said; I am not against it for when there are genuine indicators to circumcise. Only when it is elective, when it is done for no real medical reason. Then it just becomes pointless. Try not to blame your lifes troubles on it's presence, you had a condition like you said which probably would not be in the majority. For whatever reason, we're all created this way. Personally, I like the look of a foreskin, but again there's just my own opinion.

If we can settle on NOTHING else, would you be opposed to better methods being researched into in order to replace what is lost, for those that actually WANT it? It wouldn't be an exclusive interest either: Think of how people can lose their entire organ in an accident.

EDIT: Did you take a look at these two quotes from Sanslines?

circumcision now brings in hundreds of millions of dollars to doctors and the American health system.

And this one.

One survey found that up to half of circumcised guys wished to have had the choice themselves (as in, been left uncircumcised and they could have chosen to get circumcised if they wished later on in life). That's a huge number.

What do you have to say to them?

[Sanslines]

No, what I say will unavoidably be an opinion. What you say, will also be nothing more than opinion. I hope we are both understanding enough of this?

What do you consider to be the difference(s) between a fact and an opinion?

[Someone28]

I'm not sure what to say to you, or how to even answer that. Suffice it to say, I just get ticked off whenever someone spouts off their own opinion and thinks that would be enough to constitute a fact.

If I were to answer... I guess I would hold truth as being factual. It is a truth that our body is made this way, for whatever reason. It is a truth that there are those upset about what goes on. It is a truth that there are those that like it... But if truth constitutes a fact like that, I suppose that would make anything I or he says a fact automatically, doesn't it?

I don't know, and I don't even really care. All of these technicalities make things unnecessarily complicated far as I am concerned. Humans aren't that smart when they bicker over things like this which serve to digress. I just do not like it. It's that simple. I don't think it's DECENT to force it on others. *Sigh* That's all, really. And I would remind others that while their own opinion may be a personal truth, and thus a fact to them, that doesn't make it fact for others. I believe I have been respectful enough of this myself...

[Sanslines]

I'm not sure what to say to you, or how to even answer that. Suffice it to say, I just get ticked off whenever someone spouts off their own opinion and thinks that would be enough to constitute a fact.

If I were to answer... I guess I would hold truth as being factual. It is a truth that our body is made this way, for whatever reason. It is a truth that there are those upset about what goes on. It is a truth that there are those that like it... But if truth constitutes a fact like that, I suppose that would make anything I or he says a fact automatically, doesn't it?

I don't know, and I don't even really care. All of these technicalities make things unnecessarily complicated far as I am concerned. Humans aren't that smart when they bicker over things like this which serve to digress. I just do not like it. It's that simple. I don't think it's DECENT to force it on others. *Sigh* That's all, really. And I would remind others that while their own opinion may be a personal truth, and thus a fact to them, that doesn't make it fact for others. I believe I have been respectful enough of this myself...

In any discussion, it is critically important (as a very basic first step) to understand the differences between truth, fact, and opinion. It is also critically important to understand the differences between different degrees of truth, ie absolute truth, partial truth, no aspect of truth.

In this contested issue, there are aspects of truth from both sides with many different forms of opinion masquerading as a form of truth. It is important to understand the degree of truth being used and how this foundation (perhaps very limited) of truth is being spun into representing that which is no longer entirely true.

[TLCTugger]

Everyone talks about how easy it is to keep clean. That's a flip answer. Not true for me and probably others like me.

I had a skin condition which, on doctor's orders, prevented me from bathing or showering more often than every two days. Combined with extremely rapid smegma buildup and allergy to soap on my glans, it almost always smelled bad, looked bad, and itched almost all the time.

Do you seriously think anyone is proposing a ban on treating defective penises like yours? The ban is for cosmetic procedures without consent only.

I think in your case a medical ethics board could review the case and make sure non-amputating remedies (and there a several) were given a chance to work first. But that would be a matter for the licensing and accrediting bodies, not the law.

-Ron

[walter05]

Azgreen, you said:

I know men who rave how great it is to be totally bald all the time 24-7. I personally find it repulsive.

This sounds very shallow.

How could someone having a shaved head be repulsive.

Perhaps you could find it unattractive, but why repulsive?

[walter05]

Like Matt, Knowing what I know now, it would have been very simple.

The information age and the Internet is a wonderful thing. People are no longer captives to the powers-that-be.

Why did the 15-year-old want it done? Maybe for the same reason I wanted it done. Because I wanted it done. Everyone talks about how easy it is to keep clean. That's a flip answer. Not true for me and probably others like me. I had a skin condition which, on doctor's orders, prevented me from bathing or showering more often than every two days. Combined with extremely rapid smegma buildup and allergy to soap on my glans, it almost always smelled bad, looked bad, and itched almost all the time. Plus I did not like the look of a foreskin even a little bit. I liked having the head exposed and I wanted it that way all the time.

Waiting until adulthood to get circumcised presents another hump to get over. The embarrassment factor. For myself, going to get circumcised at age 22 takes a lot of courage to get over the embarrassment. I think the anti's probably hope that if kids are left uncircumcised until adulthood, the courage it takes to get it done then will keep them from ever getting it done.

I am troubled by your post. You said, "I had tried to do what he did when I was 12 or 13 or so and I failed, but not as badly as Matt did." I am troubled as to why a 12 or 13 year old boy would think there is something wrong with his penis.

Could you talk openly with your parents?

If you really had a skin condition that made circumcision necessary, then you should have been able to discuss it openly. I would like to think you could even pull your pants down and show it to your father at least, or to a doctor.

I am troubled by a 12 or 13 year old boy who could not talk about issues involving his penis with his parents. Yet, he could be so troubled as to try circumcise it himself.

I am glad for you that you were able to get the circumcision you wanted so your penis would look, feel, and smell they way your want it. However, I would not believe that a 12 oe 13 year old should be able to make that decision on his own.

We have statuatory rape because the law views minors as unable to consent to sex with adults. I think they are unable to consent to tattoos and even piercings, even if the law does not necessarily agree. I certainly think an operation as major as a circumcision should require parental approval.

[Pants off]

I'm not circumscised but it's nice to be able to roll one's foreskin back to get much the same effect, I reckon, as and when one wants it.