Newborn question

[karl262]

Good article examining the ethics of circumcision and I think an important read for new parents

http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/m...equally-wrong/

In the US context, male circumcision was adopted by the medical community in the late 1800s in an effort to combat masturbation, among other dubious reasons. It has since persisted as a rationalised habit, long past the time when it was effectively abandoned by other developed nations. Of course, it is probably true that most contemporary Western parents who choose circumcision for their sons do not do so out of a desire to ‘control’ their sexuality, but this is also true of most African parents who choose ‘circumcision’ for their daughters. As the renowned anti-FGM activist Hanny Lightfoot-Klein has stated: ‘The [main] reasons given for female circumcision in Africa and for routine male circumcision in the United States are essentially the same. Both promise cleanliness and the absence of odours as well as greater attractiveness and acceptability.’

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by chedder

Melodramatic much. It's a bit of loose skin. Earlier poster mentioned ear piercing tongue-in-cheek I assume. Is that mutilation too? If it's legal and medical doctors will do it why make a person feel as if their choice is morally, ethically, socially, unacceptable.

Circumcision results in keratosis of the head of the penis. This decreases sensitivity of the head as well as removes the skin with so many nerve endings. I'm circumcised and wish I wasn't. I take it that outer labial removal is cool then since they are just a bit of loose skin as well, eh?

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Francis's Hairpiece

My cousin has a son who she didn't get circumcised. Her husband is, and she regrets not having it done as the boy questions her on why his is different than his dad's. He feels weird. I didn't want that. So we got it done.

So, remove a part of the body to avoid having to talk to the kid about his penis? Better cut off his foreskin to avoid questions.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by Cain

Isn't that kind of the point though? At that point it is somewhat too late. Why not let it be done then if it is a pressing need for the child?

I'm with Peanut. Seems like a pointless procedure, and while it isn't the same as female circumcision it is similar in the rationale. Why perform it when there is not a compelling reason to do so?

There are many things that could be improved in this world, I don't think anyone is making this a top issue...but I find it disconcerting how downplayed it is by some. I think it is something that bears scrutiny as it is making a permanent choice for a child for little reason (in many cases).

Yeah, I just don't care enough to berate the parents, as typically happens - if they ask me my thoughts on it, I tell them why WE didn't do it and leave the rest up to them. YMMV. -shrug-

[Russic]

With all due respect to anybody or their cousin – "it should look like mine" is the strangest reason there is to cut off a piece of somebody's penis. Here's a quick cheat-sheet should the topic ever arise:

"Sometimes they look like mine, sometimes they look like yours."

It's a practice that was designed to lessen sexual satisfaction. As the movie posted already says, that's why it's weird to still do it.

[karl262]

Originally Posted by Russic

With all due respect to anybody or their cousin – "it should look like mine" is the strangest reason there is to cut off a piece of somebody's penis. Here's a quick cheat-sheet should the topic ever arise:

"Sometimes they look like mine, sometimes they look like yours."

It's a practice that was designed to lessen sexual satisfaction. As the movie posted already says, that's why it's weird to still do it.

I know that when the men in my family get together in our penis comparison circle before thanksgiving dinner it would be super awkward if one penis looked different from the other penises.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Russic

With all due respect to anybody or their cousin – "it should look like mine" is the strangest reason there is to cut off a piece of somebody's penis. Here's a quick cheat-sheet should the topic ever arise:

"Sometimes they look like mine, sometimes they look like yours."

It's a practice that was designed to lessen sexual satisfaction. As the movie posted already says, that's why it's weird to still do it.

Which, I think is the weirdest part of the wife being so adamant about it.

[Hugh Jahrmes]

Me: what're your thoughts on circumcision
Baby mama: I didn't really think about it .. I don't know if I want to, I hate seeing him cry
Me: me too. I don't think they recommend it or really lean one way or the other. More a personal preference for looks thing. You've seen lots of them, if he doesn't do it is he going to have a tough time? *gets punched, not sure why*
Baby mama: I mean I kind of prefer it being done but it does t really matter.. I don't think we should though.
Me: agreed

End of story
For the record, im snipped and don't care either way. Have a rockin sex life

[Ducay]

Everytime my dong makes errant contact on a public toilet bowl - I'm damned thankful to be not cut. Its like a built in sleeve!

[chedder]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Circumcision results in keratosis of the head of the penis. This decreases sensitivity of the head as well as removes the skin with so many nerve endings. I'm circumcised and wish I wasn't. I take it that outer labial removal is cool then since they are just a bit of loose skin as well, eh?

In seeing these posts about the details of the nerves in the foreskin I learned something, which is why this community is great. What I was more getting at is some posters desire to preach and be judge and jury seemingly to incite or put down others opinions or beliefs. Interestingly my dad (late 60's) is not circumcised and I (early 40's) am. My thoughts are it was the thing to do at the time rightly or wrongly. I don't believe my parents wanted to deprive me of sexual pleasure nor do I feel like my pleasure is diminished. I think they just felt it was cleaner. I don't know what i would have chosen had I had boys but i have daughters. And no I don't think female circumcision is cool and don't think the comparison is even remotely apt. In reading about it the two are very different and I think calling female 'mutilation' is correct but think the term doesn't really fit what happens to a male. Here's a good unbiased link.

http://thecircumcisiondecision.com/m...-circumcision/

[Cain]

Originally Posted by chedder

In seeing these posts about the details of the nerves in the foreskin I learned something, which is why this community is great. What I was more getting at is some posters desire to preach and be judge and jury seemingly to incite or put down others opinions or beliefs. Interestingly my dad (late 60's) is not circumcised and I (early 40's) am. My thoughts are it was the thing to do at the time rightly or wrongly. I don't believe my parents wanted to deprive me of sexual pleasure nor do I feel like my pleasure is diminished. I think they just felt it was cleaner. I don't know what i would have chosen had I had boys but i have daughters. And no I don't think female circumcision is cool and don't think the comparison is even remotely apt. In reading about it the two are very different and I think calling female 'mutilation' is correct but think the term doesn't really fit what happens to a male. Here's a good unbiased link.

http://thecircumcisiondecision.com/m...-circumcision/

The point (in my mind) was that the two examples are performed with the same lack of a compelling reason to do so. Yet we permit/promote one, and the other is a terrible thing (it is).

[Bill Bumface]

So, what is the female anatomical equivalent to the foreskin, the inner labia?

If someone opened a clinic offering to trim back the inner labia of little girls, would everyone just say "that's cool, it's your daughter, your choice"?

Circumcision seems like a pretty odd thing that became normal so people no longer see that it's pretty odd.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

So, what is the female anatomical equivalent to the foreskin, the inner labia?

If someone opened a clinic offering to trim back the inner labia of little girls, would everyone just say "that's cool, it's your daughter, your choice"?

Circumcision seems like a pretty odd thing that became normal so people no longer see that it's pretty odd.

Clitoral hood would be the equivalent. Layer of skin covering/protecting a bundle of nerves.

Also, labia reduction surgery is actually a thing, though as far as I am aware it's not a cultural practice involving infants or children.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Also, labia reduction surgery is actually a thing, though as far as I am aware it's not a cultural practice involving infants or children.

And I don't think anyone would bat an eye if an adult male chose to be circumcised for whatever reason. I think body modifications are fine, but it should be the person choosing to have it done when they are capable of doing so.

[blankall]

It's actually been shown that male circumcision has zero affect on sexual experience/satisfaction:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...udy-issue.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23937309

It's an ornamental piece of skin that would protect the head of your penis, if you never wore pants. We have pants....

It's been scientifically shown to be cleaner and prevent the spread of STDs. In North America the prevalence of life threatening STDs is low enough and use of condoms is high enough that it does not make it medically necessary. Doctors aren't recommending it anymore, but they aren't pushing for a ban either.

Comparing it to female circumcision (which by the way is not a circumcision), which is the removal of parts of the genitals necessary for sexual experience, is totally different. Female circumcision would be the anatomical equivalent of cutting the head of the penis off.

You can talk about nerve endings...ya da ya da, but the fact is there are billion dollar industries devouted to numbing men's nerve endings during sex (and increasing stamina). The fact of the matter is that men have a vast excess of nerve endings in their junk and the science shows removing some makes no difference whatsoever.

I have a friend who, as an adult, needed the procedure done for medical reasons. He stated there was no difference.

The facts are there are medical benefits, but it's also a medical procedure itself. I'm not advocating everyone have it done, but the anti-circumcision crowd is clearly pushing points they know to be false.

[blankall]

To add to my other post, of all the decisions my parents made for me: what school to go to, what neighbourhood to live in, what leisure activities I was involved in, etc...circumcision ranked very low on the impact list. Parents are entitled to make decisions for you that will affect the rest of your life. In fact, that's their legally defined role as parents.

It was nice not having to deal with the cleanliness issues on camping trips. During my younger days, it was good to have decreased odds of getting an STD. It increased my chances of having a woman provide oral pleasure.

Other than that no big impacts on my life, other than when I have to deal with an anti-circumcision advocate telling me I was mutilated or traumatized. Like I said before the foreskin has no large anatomical purpose since the invention of clothes to cover our lower halves.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by blankall

It's been scientifically shown to be cleaner and prevent the spread of STDs. In North America the prevalence of life threatening STDs is low enough and use of condoms is high enough that it does not make it medically necessary. Doctors aren't recommending it anymore, but they aren't pushing for a ban either.

Comparing it to female circumcision (which by the way is not a circumcision), which is the removal of parts of the genitals necessary for sexual experience, is totally different. Female circumcision would be the anatomical equivalent of cutting the head of the penis off.

The facts are there are medical benefits, but it's also a medical procedure itself. I'm not advocating everyone have it done, but the anti-circumcision crowd is clearly pushing points they know to be false.

Nice response!

There are medical benefits but they are mostly seen to be minimal with the addition that there is a possible complication in the procedure itself.

"The medical benefits of circumcision are multiple, but most are small. The clearest medical benefit of circumcision is the relative reduction in the risk for a UTI, especially in early infancy. Although this risk [figure: see text] is real, the absolute numbers are small (risk ranges from 1 in 100 to 1 in 1000), and one investigator has estimated that it may take approximately 80 neonatal circumcisions to prevent one UTI"

"Most of the other medical benefits of circumcision probably can be realized without circumcision as long as access to clean water and proper penile hygiene are achieved"

So I wouldn't say that people are pushing things they they know to be untrue. There is a grey area here, and I think that a lot of us believe when there is not a clear and observable gain that we should not be subjecting an infant to such an invasive procedure.

As for the comparison to female circumcision, it is mostly a comparison in that there is no real pressing need for it to be done. Similarly, there does not seem to be a pressing need for male circumcision. I don't think people are generally trying to make it out to be as traumatic when it clearly isn't.

As for your other post: Parent's choice - yes, it is clearly in the hands of parents these days, but that does not necessarily lend itself to being a good choice. It is not the same as the school you go to, the neighbourhood you live in. None of these removes a body part from you. You might consider this loss negligible, but the fact remains that this may not be true for everyone who undergoes the procedure. All of the benefits you outlined that you appreciated - you could have still experienced all of these by choosing to take this route at a later age.

"Parents are entitled to make decisions for you that will affect the rest of your life. In fact, that's their legally defined role as parents."

Ironically, it was brought up earlier sarcastically that at least someone didn't get their kids sleeve tattoos. I think the comparison could actually be made that they are somewhat similar. You might actually love that you have sleeve tattoos and happy that your parents made that decision for you. And surely they would be within their rights to make that decision.

Essentially what I am trying to argue is that not all decisions that parents make are the same. I feel that a tough to reverse body modification that doesn't provide a clear medical benefit should be scrutinized.

(source for my italic quotes: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11732129)

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by blankall

Like I said before the foreskin has no large anatomical purpose since the invention of clothes to cover our lower halves.

Personally, I would rather have a non-keratinized head of my penis. Clothes still abrade the head of the penis. If you want to have it done when you're an adult go for it. I just don't think we should be cutting anything off our children over a stupid reason like "I didn't want to teach my kid how to clean his penis." It's a barbaric practice perpetuated by stupid ideas like "I want him to look like daddy."

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Personally, I would rather have a non-keratinized head of my penis. Clothes still abrade the head of the penis. If you want to have it done when you're an adult go for it. I just don't think we should be cutting anything off our children over a stupid reason like "I didn't want to teach my kid how to clean his penis." It's a barbaric practice perpetuated by stupid ideas like "I want him to look like daddy."

The forsekin has the least amount of touch receptors in any piece of skin the human body:

http://medind.nic.in/jae/t08/i1/jaet08i1p30.pdf

It might have nerves, but on the outside of the foreskin. The nerves in the foreskin also run down the entire shaft of the penis. So cutting them off makes no difference to the amount of nerves.

And as the previous study shows, circumcision makes no difference to sexual satisfaction. It does however reduce the risk of HIV transmission by 60%.

As for Keratinzation:

They argue that permanent externalization of the glans penis results in desensitization due to keratinization of the glans that buries nerve endings deep into this structure. However, no solid scientific evidence supports this assumption.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1015820-clinical

The Keratination effect your talking about is very minor.

My point stands. There are multiple observable medical benefits to circumcision and no observable loss in sensation or function.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Cain

Nice response!

There are medical benefits but they are mostly seen to be minimal with the addition that there is a possible complication in the procedure itself.

"The medical benefits of circumcision are multiple, but most are small. The clearest medical benefit of circumcision is the relative reduction in the risk for a UTI, especially in early infancy. Although this risk [figure: see text] is real, the absolute numbers are small (risk ranges from 1 in 100 to 1 in 1000), and one investigator has estimated that it may take approximately 80 neonatal circumcisions to prevent one UTI"

"Most of the other medical benefits of circumcision probably can be realized without circumcision as long as access to clean water and proper penile hygiene are achieved"

So I wouldn't say that people are pushing things they they know to be untrue. There is a grey area here, and I think that a lot of us believe when there is not a clear and observable gain that we should not be subjecting an infant to such an invasive procedure.

As for the comparison to female circumcision, it is mostly a comparison in that there is no real pressing need for it to be done. Similarly, there does not seem to be a pressing need for male circumcision. I don't think people are generally trying to make it out to be as traumatic when it clearly isn't.

As for your other post: Parent's choice - yes, it is clearly in the hands of parents these days, but that does not necessarily lend itself to being a good choice. It is not the same as the school you go to, the neighbourhood you live in. None of these removes a body part from you. You might consider this loss negligible, but the fact remains that this may not be true for everyone who undergoes the procedure. All of the benefits you outlined that you appreciated - you could have still experienced all of these by choosing to take this route at a later age.

"Parents are entitled to make decisions for you that will affect the rest of your life. In fact, that's their legally defined role as parents."

Ironically, it was brought up earlier sarcastically that at least someone didn't get their kids sleeve tattoos. I think the comparison could actually be made that they are somewhat similar. You might actually love that you have sleeve tattoos and happy that your parents made that decision for you. And surely they would be within their rights to make that decision.

Essentially what I am trying to argue is that not all decisions that parents make are the same. I feel that a tough to reverse body modification that doesn't provide a clear medical benefit should be scrutinized.

(source for my italic quotes: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11732129)

People are pushing facts they know to be untrue. Like you've done several times in your post, they are making jumps in logic and exaggerating small effects or dismissing large effects.

The medical benefits are more than minimal. The protection against STDs is substantial. Yes you can get better protection from condoms, but realistically...people slip up.

People were making the comparison to female genital mutilation in more than "both are unnecessary" kind of way.

There are no grey areas here. The medical benefits of circumcision are very real. The fact is that most of us will never be exposed to HIV, so it's not necessity in North America. However, the consequences of an HIV or even a herpes infection, personally, would be so devastating that I would recommend circumcision regardless of what the statistics are.