to circumsize or not to circumsize

[LANTIRN]

Ok, for all you folks that are in favor of male circumcision, how is it any better than cutting off a girl's clit? Seriously, please explain to me why you think female genital mutilation is bad, but it is ok to do it to a boy. If you had a daughter would you cut out her clit? Why or why not?

[347Mike]

Seriously, an entire clit vs some loose skin?

It obviously is still beneficial as you guys are in the minority by a long shot.

[LANTIRN]

Seriously, an entire clit vs some loose skin?

Seriously. Because it is essentially the same principle. You are cutting nerves out of your kid's genitals.

[347Mike]

Seriously. Because it is essentially the same principle. You are cutting nerves out of your kid's genitals.

It is essentially not. An ENTIRE clit vs some loose skin. That loose skin isn't going to be missed, it isn't going to prevent me from cumming all over the place. It isn't going to need to be cleaned anymore.

[dumpycapri85]

Ok, for all you folks that are in favor of male circumcision, how is it any better than cutting off a girl's clit? Seriously, please explain to me why you think female genital mutilation is bad, but it is ok to do it to a boy. If you had a daughter would you cut out her clit? Why or why not?

Because they do this in ass backward countries to keep the girls from having sex because they will no longer enjoy the climax . I assure you mine feels and works great so its no where near the same thing .

[CexMashean]

It's times like this that i want to call my mom/dad and thank them for doing the right thing and giving me a beautiful penis via medical instruments.

[LANTIRN]

Because they do this in ass backward countries to keep the girls from having sex because they will no longer enjoy the climax . I assure you mine feels and works great so its no where near the same thing .

http://docakilah.wordpress.com/2011/...-masturbation/

When circumcision was introduced, it was believed that masturbation caused a lot of different illnesses. It was considered extremely immoral and many children, both male and female, have been circumcised through the years because parents found them “in the act.”

It was already known at the end of the 1800s that the removal of the foreskin, which is the only moveable part of the penis would reduce sexual sensitivity and restrict movement of the penile shaft.

It was believed that masturbation caused blindness, mental illness, alcoholism, epilepsy and several other ills. It therefore made sense to some physicians that circumcision would stop masturbation and prevent the onset of these illnesses.

Non-religious circumcision in English-speaking countries arose in a climate of negative attitudes towards sex, especially concerning masturbation. In her 1978 article The Ritual of Circumcision, Karen Erickson Paige writes: “In the United States, the current medical rationale for circumcision developed after the operation was in wide practice. The original reason for the surgical removal of the foreskin, or prepuce, was to control ‘masturbatory insanity’ – the range of mental disorders that people believed were caused by the ‘polluting’ practice of ‘self-abuse.’”

“Self-abuse” was a term commonly used to describe masturbation in the 19th century. According to Paige, “treatments ranged from diet, moral exhortations, hydrotherapy, and marriage, to such drastic measures as surgery, physical restraints, frights, and punishment. Some doctors recommended covering the penis with plaster of Paris, leather, or rubber; cauterization; making boys wear chastity belts or spiked rings; and in extreme cases, castration.” Paige details how circumcision became popular as a masturbation remedy:

“In the 1890s, it became a popular technique to prevent, or cure, masturbatory insanity. In 1891 the president of the Royal College of Surgeons of England published On Circumcision as Preventive of Masturbation, and two years later another British doctor wrote Circumcision: Its Advantages and How to Perform It, which listed the reasons for removing the ‘vestigial’ prepuce. Evidently the foreskin could cause ‘nocturnal incontinence,’ hysteria, epilepsy, and irritation that might ‘give rise to erotic stimulation and, consequently, masturbation.’ Another physician, P.C. Remondino, added that ‘circumcision is like a substantial and well-secured life annuity…it insures better health, greater capacity for labor, longer life, less nervousness, sickness, loss of time, and less doctor bills.’ No wonder it became a popular remedy.”

At the same time circumcisions were advocated on men, clitoridectomies (removal of the clitoris) were also performed for the same reason (to treat female masturbators). The US “Orificial Surgery Society” for female “circumcision” operated until 1925, and clitoridectomies and infibulations would continue to be advocated by some through the 1930s. As late as 1936, L. E. Holt, an author of pediatric textbooks, advocated male and female circumcision as a treatment for masturbation.

One of the leading advocates of circumcision was John Harvey Kellogg. (yes, the Kellogg from the famous Corn Flakes!) He advocated the consumption of Kellogg’s corn flakes to prevent masturbation, and he believed that circumcision would be an effective way to eliminate masturbation in males.

“Covering the organs with a cage has been practiced with entire success. A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, 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, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed. If any attempt is made to watch the child, he should be so carefully surrounded by vigilance that he cannot possibly transgress without detection. If he is only partially watched, he soon learns to elude observation, and thus the effect is only to make him cunning in his vice.”

Robert Darby, writing in the Australian Medical Journal, noted that some 19th century circumcision advocates—and their opponents—believed that the foreskin was sexually sensitive:

In the 19th century the role of the foreskin in erotic sensation was well understood by physicians who wanted to cut it off precisely because they considered it the major factor leading boys to masturbation. The Victorian physician and venereologist William Acton (1814–1875) damned it as “a source of serious mischief”, and most of his contemporaries concurred. Both opponents and supporters of circumcision agreed that the significant role the foreskin played in sexual response was the main reason why it should be either left in place or removed. William Hammond, a Professor of Mind in New York in the late 19th century, commented that “circumcision, when performed in early life, generally lessens the voluptuous sensations of sexual intercourse”, and both he and Acton considered the foreskin necessary for optimal sexual function, especially in old age. Jonathan Hutchinson, English surgeon and pathologist (1828–1913), and many others, thought this was the main reason why it should be excised

When it was finally realized that masturbation did not cause illnesses, the foreskin got blamed for penile and cervical cancers, urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases.

.
I believe that relating the non-religious history of circumcision is important in understanding why the procedure came to be.

[dumpycapri85]

Here is one to wrap your head around .

What has been the medical view of circumcision?

In 1975, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated in no uncertain terms that "there is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn." In 1983, the AAP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) restated this position. In 1999 and again in 2005, the AAP again restated this position of equivocation.

Currently, the practice of newborn circumcision is very common. It has been estimated that 60%-75% of all males in the United States are circumcised. This number, of course, varies depending upon ethnicity and religious affiliation.

Regarding newborn circumcision, most physicians today agree with the practice of informing parents of the risks and benefits of the procedure in an unbiased manner. Recently, however, several large studies revealed a 60% decrease in HIV transmission in circumcised males compared to uncircumcised males. This may ultimately influence some changes in recommendations in the near future.


Some stuff doesn't just wash off .

[stevo]

Every time this is discussed, the same people start trying to compare it to practices done by fly-bitten heathens in BumFuck, Egypt.

It seems the only people that are calling it mutilation are the ones live life daily with a savage's dick.

Stevo

[Binky]

If i had a kid, i wouldnt want him to have a dog dick. Red rocket FTL.

Snip snip mofo.

[LANTIRN]

Every time this is discussed, the same people start trying to compare it to practices done by fly-bitten heathens in BumFuck, Egypt.

It seems the only people that are calling it mutilation are the ones live life daily with a savage's dick.

Stevo

Wrong, considering I am circumsized and I am against it. I believe there is at least one woman who posted and was against it. You have yet to explain how cutting off part of a boy's penis is not the same as cutting off part of a girls vagina.

[racrguy]

Here is one to wrap your head around .

What has been the medical view of circumcision?

In 1975, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated in no uncertain terms that "there is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn." In 1983, the AAP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) restated this position. In 1999 and again in 2005, the AAP again restated this position of equivocation.

Currently, the practice of newborn circumcision is very common. It has been estimated that 60%-75% of all males in the United States are circumcised. This number, of course, varies depending upon ethnicity and religious affiliation.

Regarding newborn circumcision, most physicians today agree with the practice of informing parents of the risks and benefits of the procedure in an unbiased manner. Recently, however, several large studies revealed a 60% decrease in HIV transmission in circumcised males compared to uncircumcised males. This may ultimately influence some changes in recommendations in the near future.


Some stuff doesn't just wash off .

Apparently you ignored my "marvels of modern technology" statement. Condoms are a "marvel of modern technology" thereby rendering your HIV statistic moot. And please, cite your source on the "most physicians today" claim. Just because " 60%-75% of all males in the United States are circumcised" does not make it right. A classic example of appealing to a common practice fallacy. "Just because everyone else does it, that must make it right."

Because they do this in ass backward countries to keep the girls from having sex because they will no longer enjoy the climax . I assure you mine feels and works great so its no where near the same thing .

It is essentially not. An ENTIRE clit vs some loose skin. That loose skin isn't going to be missed, it isn't going to prevent me from cumming all over the place. It isn't going to need to be cleaned anymore.

The clit and "some loose skin" are the same thing in this conversation (not anatomically, but for the sake of argument, they're the same), both packed with nerve endings. Can a girl still have an orgasm without her clit? Yes, g-spot, son. But some times it's just better to leave things how they are.

Every time this is discussed, the same people start trying to compare it to practices done by fly-bitten heathens in BumFuck, Egypt.

It seems the only people that are calling it mutilation are the ones live life daily with a savage's dick.

Stevo

Please, quote me where I said that I am either cut, or uncut. Way to jump to conclusions.

[LANTIRN]

Apparently you ignored my "marvels of modern technology" statement. Condoms are a "marvel of modern technology" thereby rendering your HIV statistic moot. And please, cite your source on the "most physicians today" claim. Just because " 60%-75% of all males in the United States are circumcised" does not make it right. A classic example of appealing to a common practice fallacy. "Just because everyone else does it, that must make it right."

I'd like to point out that about 100 years ago frontal lobotomies were the norm for taking care of a wide range of issues, from schizophrenia to just bad behavior. They were used up through the '50's or '60's I believe. Just because it was the norm, didn't mean it was right or a good idea.

I know I am just beating a dead horse; some people are just going to cut off their son's penis no matter what logic we throw at them.

[downshift_me]

My wife and I had a midwife and she and I performed it so I was there and making sure it came out perfect . As for the pain , my son didn't even flinch . She used a small bell looking tool with a clamp and it was done in 2 seconds . Why punish the kid his whole life and make him an odd ball , cut it .

Who was the midwife if you don't mind? Birth center, hospital or home birth? I've been researching and most said they will not do it and you must breastfeed for a minimum of 6 weeks.


Our boy was snipped just a few hours after birth and in his 17 months of life there hasn't been any issues what-so-ever. If we have another boy he will also be snipped.

[CJ-95GT]

For christs sake, snip that shit. Like getting braces, there is no medical need but your kid will thank you later.