[Kazan]

http://www.torontolife.com/features/boys-and-hood/

registration not required - it's 5 pages so you can forget about a copy paste - here are some highlights though

Religious and tribal rites aside, the history of circumcision is
    largely a history of sexual desire. Rabbi Moses Maimonides, a
    12th-century philosopher active in the codi­fication of Jewish law,
    wrote that circum­cision “has not been prescribed with a view to
    perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is
    defective morally…The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of
    sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is
    indubitable.” Moralists have long condemned extramatrimonial orgasm,
    whether alone or with a partner, but it wasn’t until the late 1700s
    that auto-erotic anxiety seized the medical profession. Girls and
    boys were drugged or restrained in chastity belts and spiked penile
    rings lest they touch their genitals. In Britain, children were
    circumcised in the vain hope that the procedure would reduce
    “amorosity” and prevent masturbation. The mania crossed the
    Atlantic, and Dr. John Kellogg took up the cause. The influential
    Corn Flakes creator (he believed in bland food, sexual abstinence
    and a daily yogurt enema) felt vital fluids were lost during orgasm.
    In his 1888 medical treatise /Treatment for Self-Abuse and Its
    Effects/, he advised, *“A remedy for masturbation which is almost
    always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation
    should be performed by a surgeon without administering an
    anaesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a
    salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with
    the idea of punishment. In females, the author has found the
    application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means
    of allaying the abnormal excitement.”

Paul Tinari is another of Stubbs’ patients. An extreme example of circumcision as physical assault, his was performed in 1965, when he was eight years old, because of supposed masturbatory tendencies. He was held down by two priests at a Catholic residential school in Montreal, his nose and wrist broken in the struggle as his foreskin was crudely severed.

[Ford Prefect]

Heh heh, his name is Dr. Stubbs, and he fixes penises.

[Kazan]

actually he's generally an expert plastic surgeon

[Turambar]

brings entirely new meaning to 'trying to keep the _____ man down'

[Nuke]

i dont know, circumsized penises look better than hooded ones
still i got better things to do than read a 5 page article on forskin.

[Rictor]

I think this officially qualifies as an unhealthy obsession.

[Kazan]

rictor by that standard then so is advocating freedom, or still playing FS2, or one of a million other things - i'm advocating people stopping things

nuke: that's because your socialized to think that - 85% of human males on the planet are not mutilated - only places/people that really perform it: United States, Jewish people, Muslims - it's not medically beneficial and it's the only case in which it is legal to amputate healthy tissue/organs from a minor on parental preference

[Nuclear1]

So, what's your problem with circumcision? For being a process that can possibly lower the number of future AIDS cases in Africa by two million, reducing the risk of penile cancer, HPV, urinary tract infection, and phimosis, I don't see a whole lot of downside for the infant. Unless he finds out later, I doubt he's going to miss a little flap of skin over his penis when he gets older.

As for the article...

The influential Corn Flakes creator (he believed in bland food, sexual abstinence and a daily yogurt enema) felt vital fluids were lost during orgasm.

Need I say more?

[Kazan]

So, what's your problem with circumcision? For being a process that can possibly lower the number of future AIDS cases in Africa by two million, reducing the risk of penile cancer, HPV, urinary tract infection, and phimosis,

Circumcision does not lower the transmission rate of HIV - the "study" (if it can be called that) which showed a correlation can be conclusively said not to be capable of showing causation - that's because the chief risk factor differennce between the intact group and the circumcised group was not intact vs circumcision it was sexual behavior practice - condom usage, promiscuity, etc.  All that "study" showed was that "unprotected promiscous sex in a country with a high HIV infection rate is likely to get you HIV"

there is absolute zero reduction in the penile cancer risk - that study was also shot down by methodology errors (specifically when age differences in the sample groups were taken into account the incidence rate differential between the groups became statistically insignificant [IE within the margin of error])

the UTI study (the latest one) - even if it had not been shot down by methodological errors - would show that 117 circumcisions would be required to prevent one UTI [easily treatable] - the net of all the UTI studies that have been good shows that there is ZERO advantage

the vast majority of cases of phimosis are misdisagnoses made by insufficiently trained medical staff that do not understand that the foreskin is not suppose to be fully retactable until sometime between the ages of 13 and 17 (Yes that large of variance with individuals) - they're diagnosing developmental phimosis (Which you grow out of) as pathological phimosis (which you don't) - even in properly diagnosed cases of pathological phimosis there are significantly less invasive treatments that are equally effective and the British Journal of Medicine warned it's doctors last month that using circumcision when equally effective less invasive treatment is available is unethical.

I don't see a whole lot of downside for the infant. Unless he finds out later, I doubt he's going to miss a little flap of skin over his penis when he gets older.

An infant girl won't miss her clitoral hood, or even her clitoris - and an adult woman may not even if she's never told. 

It's the same argument you just made - it doens't make it right, i just demonstrated one of the hypocrises of western society.  Just because someone doesn't know their rights have been violated does not make it not a violation of their rights. 

that is not "a little flap" - in adulthood it grows out to be enough tissue that if removed and unfolded 15 US quarters ( http://www.noharmm.org/snip.htm ) can be placed on it without overlapping - that is 60-90 square centimeters.

 It contains 66% of the nervous tissue of the penis [20,000 nerve endings], 50% of the mobile skin, 100% of the special immune system cells, constitutes 100% of the natural protection of the glans.  it facitilates the natural gliding action during coitus (80% of the incidence of painful coitus, for the woman, is because her partner has had his foreskin lopped off)

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

I'll forgive you the misinformation because the pro-circumcision movement is very good at spreading false information intentionally, the media is very guillable and ignorant of the difference between correlation vs causation and doesn't know how to do a methodological analysis of a study. 

If you wish me to dig up source citations for my claims I will, but it will take me time to find the relevant entries in the circumstitions master references list - in the mean time here is the master references list in it's entirety http://www.circumstitions.com/References.html  and the "short list" of choice entries http://www.circumstitions.com/Stitions.html

as for some of the effects of foreskin missing, not just some "flap of tissue" as you've been inaccurately taught, is missing - keratinization (Callousing) of the glans penis, reducing the sensativity of what nerves you have left (which as one ages becomes progressively worse).   Sex being painful for the woman without copious ammounts of artificial lubricant, and then it gets worse from there (FOLLOWING LINK IS NOT SAFE FOR WORK) http://www.noharmm.org/IDcirc.htm -- some guys cannot even get an erection without it hurting because of being circumcised.


No nuclear1 - the foreskin is not "just some flap of skin", and removing it has no medical advantage.  The very origins of the practice in america should tell your quite clearly that it's a violation of peoples rights - but then the ACCURATE medical science backs up that claim.

[Turambar]

lol, well its too late for me.  unless its in a jar somewhere....

[IceFire]

Every article I ever read about circumcision indicated that the slight loss in feeling was essentially inperceptable.  So much for putting down the "immoral masses".  Sexual behavior seems to increase in species that have larger brains and more intelect.  It seems that the complexity of behavior and how it plays out seems to filter into this aspect of our psyche.  Just incase anyone didn't know...I would assume that the vast majority already do

[Kazan]

Tarumbar:

yes - it's (mostly)* too late for those of us it's already been done to - however, we can prevent it from being done to the next generation



* the skin of the foreskin can be stimulated to regrow over the course of several years - this restores the gliding action and the protection of the glans - the glans will then dekeratinize (decallous) and regain a significant ammout of sensativity -- there are much more sophisticated devices for doing this than the method mentioned in the article


IceFire:
that statement is based off the Masters & Johnson study - which was completely shot down due to methodological errors.  More recent analysis and studies show a huge difference - the foreskin containts 66% of the nerves of the penis and is the primary erogenous zone of the male body.  The Masters & Johnson study was fatally flawed in that it was designed to activate a different kind of touch nerve receptor than the ones present in the foreskin.


most of this information is available at circumstitions, noharmm and other various sites with accompanying source citations

i'm going to bed

[Ghostavo]

Just out of curiosity, what non invasive treatments exist in case of frenulum breve?

[Ford Prefect]

Tarumbar:

yes - it's (mostly)* too late for those of us it's already been done to - however, we can prevent it from being done to the next generation

*Gazes off into the horizon.*

We can only hope....

that statement is based off the Masters & Johnson study

Seriously, these people have to start changing their names. I can't handle it-- the jokes come at me too fast.

[Kazan]

Just out of curiosity, what non invasive treatments exist in case of frenulum breve?

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

never said non invasive, but less invasive - IE complete amputation of otherwise healthy tissues is excessive - and it's not treating the problem.  Treating the problem and then letting the tissue heal > *

[Nuke]

rictor by that standard then so is advocating freedom, or still playing FS2, or one of a million other things - i'm advocating people stopping things

nuke: that's because your socialized to think that - 85% of human males on the planet are not mutilated - only places/people that really perform it: United States, Jewish people, Muslims - it's not medically beneficial and it's the only case in which it is legal to amputate healthy tissue/organs from a minor on parental preference

im not saying it shouldnt be stopped. body modification should be a matter of personal preferance. it is said that women perfer the look and feel of a circumsized penis, and that too is socialized behavior. but its the world i live in and id rather be armed with an apropriate member

but i think its no longer a matter of religios tyrany and more a matter of insurance companies wanting to sell another overpriced and unnessicary procedure to make money. it all comes down to capitolism convincing people to buy something they dont need.

that statement is based off the Masters & Johnson study

Seriously, these people have to start changing their names. I can't handle it-- the jokes come at me too fast.

is that dr johnson the same one responsible for doc johnson sex products

[Kazan]

im not saying it shouldnt be stopped. body modification should be a matter of personal preferance. it is said that women perfer the look and feel of a circumsized penis, and that too is socialized behavior. but its the world i live in and id rather be armed with an apropriate member

A) women in this country "prefer the look" because it's what they've been socialized to expect
B) the feel? hahahaha - 80% of the incidence of painful intercourse (for the woman) in this country is because of her partner being cut.   

You'd rather be armed with a deformed member missing 66% of it's nerves - that should be your choice when you turn 18 years old, not your parents when your 18 hours old

but i think its no longer a matter of religios tyrany and more a matter of insurance companies wanting to sell another overpriced and unnessicary procedure to make money. it all comes down to capitolism convincing people to buy something they dont need.

Most insurance companies refuse to pay for it since the AAP and AMA came out with statements saying that they no longer recommended it

is that dr johnson the same one responsible for doc johnson sex products

no idea (probably not)

[Kazan]

reviving this thread since fury doesn't think I should have more than on thread - i'll post all new articles to this thread, etc.  IF you don't like the subject GTFO of the thread


Specific refutation of the article goober linked me (from a member of the mailing list im on)

The study claiming to show circumcision will protect millions against
HIV boils down to 29 circumcised men who didn't get HIV compared to 20 who
did. That's a wild extrapolation, when the circumcised men were
exposed to more safe-sex advice than the control group, and the experiment was
not (and could not be) double-blinded or placebo- controlled.

Even if circumcision offers this much (or little) protection to a
population, it will be impossible to convince individuals (painfully,
visibly and sexually altered) that they have not been immunised, and
the outcome will be a disastrous abandonment of proven prevenion methods.

as for "the feel" for a woman

The O'Hara study found that women are 8X more likely to orgasm with a normal penis than with a truncated one. plus all of the other benefits that come with a normal penis ...circumcision shortchanges both men AND women!

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/

[Herra Tohtori]

My opinion on any kind of medical... treatments (though it can be applied to almost anything else too):

If it's broken, fix it. If it's not, leave it be.

Having a foreskin is normal.

Having it cut off requires actions. Hence there should be an acceptable reason* for that action.

Now what would be a valid reason? Let's think.

In my opinion any body part should only be cut off if it's in a condition that threatens the health of the body in overall. For example, if a hand is in necrosis and can't be healed, then it's an acceptable loss to cut it off. Thus, in this case, a valid reason for circumcision could only be a medical condition that requires cutting the foreskin away to protect the health/life of the child.

In most cases of circumcision, the foreskin in question is perfectly healthy and there is no reason that would qualify as a "reason", at least not in these standards.

I dare say that a slightly possible reduction of the risk of getting HIV doesn't count as a valid reason for circumcision. I haven't familiarized myself with the studies that claim this, but I daresay it's more of a statistical trick. I don't think circumcision makes one completely immune to HIV/other veneral diseases... the only thing that actually gives protection is the condom. If you play outside in the rain without rain coat, you get wet.


On the other hand, if you accept circumcision based on religious or social pressure, you have to ask yourself why circumcision of girls is generally not accepted (in western world, that is)?

In both cases something is done to perfectly healthy body parts for no medical reason, causing - inevitably - immediate pain, unnecessary wound and very possible pissed-offness in later life.

In Finland, it's actually also debated whether doctors should be allowed to perform circumcisions at all. Other part says that they are made regardless of doctors, and if doctors are allowed to make them, they at least get done in clean conditions, reducing the risk of complications. On the other hand, many doctors here refuse to do it since they consider it to be mutilating assault.

It's quite interesting that at least here in finland, it's illegal to crop dogs' tails or ears, but it still is legal to cut off parts of human beings. Luckily, circumcision is not widely practiced here, practically only cultural minorities (moslims, jewish people and perhaps to some extent the greec catholic people, though I'm not sure at all of the last one).

Oh well. This is what I think of this matter. This is one of the things where I have to quite agree with Kazan.

[Kazan]

yup, and if you want to do it for religious reasons - do it when you're an adult so you're making the choice for yourself


PS: christians are disobeying jesus when they circumcise