Circumcision in infancy

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

I got a rash after sex with my girlfriend. Suffice to say I was freaked out, but it wasn't anything bad. Either a latex allergy or a yeast infection I caught from her. Long story short, the doctor thought it would be a good idea for me to get circumcised. You know, because that's the logical solution to fungal infections...

Treeinthewoods:

To the people militantly opposed - Please don't bother as I won't be reading or responding to your posts. I did not come here for advice, I got that from an actual Doctor. I'm just stating my feelings and plans and you have zero chance of changing our decision.

The obvious question here is if you feel this way what on earth are you doing in a froum for discussion?

Knight Templar:

Treeinthewoods:

To the people militantly opposed - Please don't bother as I won't be reading or responding to your posts. I did not come here for advice, I got that from an actual Doctor. I'm just stating my feelings and plans and you have zero chance of changing our decision.

The obvious question here is if you feel this way what on earth are you doing in a froum for discussion?

Since your question has nothing to do with my stance on circumcising my kids I actually will respond.

I was answering the OP's question, he asked. There is also a chance someone who is not decided may read my post so I want people to be aware that there truly are medically valid reasons to circumcise. The general position of this board is probably fairly split but I noticed in prior threads that the anti-circumcision group works very diligently to belittle and shout down opposing points of view. I have no interest in arguing with zealots, simply in stating my opinion for people on the fence to consider.

I feel the same way about abortion and gay rights threads, happy to volunteer my opinion and interested in reading others but my mind is already made up on those topics (just like most anyone else that posts in them).

TL;DR - Polite flame shield for a topic that is too deeply personal for most people to be influenced by an internet stranger.

Treeinthewoods:
Snip

The foreskin that is cut off is used in medical research. It's a multi million dollar business in America, the selling of foreskin is. The doctors protect it.

They don't in Europe because they get their skin elsewhere and already have a chain of supply set up. So, changing to use the cheaper cut foreskin would have a large initial set up cost and would ruin an already existing industry (skin production). Not forgetting to mention the questionable morality of harvesting the skin of infants genitals for medical research of course.

Edit: Oh yeah, OT; my boat is like yours OP. I wasn't a babe when I got the snip. Though, I was much younger than you are. I was around six when I got mine, same reason as you.

Cried like a baby I did, unsurprisingly. The worst was when my then newly exposed, but still constantly moist and now bloody, head would stick to my underwear. Only had to go through taking those off once before, from then on, getting into the bath with them still on.

Batou667:

TheTurtleMan:

hardlymotivated:
Hello all.

It's been a good while since the topic of circumcision (male and/or female) has been discussed in R&P.

As a man who was recently circumcised (fewer than 12 hours ago), the topic's naturally been weighing on my mind a little, and I'm interested to find out where your thoughts and opinions lie with male circumcision in infancy. Were any of you circumcised at birth? Do you have any thought with regard to your parent(s) or doctor's decision?

I'm aware that it's likely to be rather a divisive topic, but let's do ourselves all a favour and try to keep it this civil. If you want to talk about female circumcision as well, fair enough, but I'd be rather surprised if anybody came out as being in favour of it.

Could I ask you whether you feel any difference in sexual experiences as someone who has uh, played for both teams? Is it still just as good or can you tell any noticeable differences?

Dude, he had surgery 12 hours ago! I think sex is probably a sore subject right about now.

Hey I'm not askin for a steamy night of romance and passionate love making, I'm just askin him to take one for team and squeeze one out in the bathroom with the lights off. All in the name of science of course!

TheTurtleMan:

Batou667:

TheTurtleMan:

Could I ask you whether you feel any difference in sexual experiences as someone who has uh, played for both teams? Is it still just as good or can you tell any noticeable differences?

Dude, he had surgery 12 hours ago! I think sex is probably a sore subject right about now.

Hey I'm not askin for a steamy night of romance and passionate love making, I'm just askin him to take one for team and squeeze one out in the bathroom with the lights off. All in the name of science of course!

Most doctors advise against that in the states for a few weeks. It can hurt the recovery process.

So you'll just have to wait.

Also, this feels weird to talk about...

And off topic.

hardlymotivated:
If you want to talk about female circumcision as well, fair enough, but I'd be rather surprised if anybody came out as being in favour of it.

I personally think it's misleading to equate female genetical mutilation/female genital cutting with circumcision.

Women do have a prepuce, which is analogous to a male foreskin, and it is often removed during FGM, but because the external part of the clitoris is also removed (called a clitoridectomy) it's more akin to what on a male body would be termed 'emasculation' or 'infibulation' (depending on precisely how it's done).

I'm not going to come out in favour of it, but I will say that the standard narrative of FGM (that domineering men come and chop off their daughters clitorises so they will remain pure and chaste and not have sex) is quite wrong and a little offensive. It's a much, much more complicated issue than just "barbaric" people mutilating women to keep them in line.

Danyal:
By the way, it is not an Islamic practice! :D

Of course not. Clitoridectomy was a fairly routine procedure in Europe and America until the early 20th century, used to treat "conditions" like homosexuality, nymphomania and masturbation.

In fact, noone in countries where FGM is common believes that it's about stopping women having sex. That's only the reason why it was done in our culture.

TheTurtleMan:

Batou667:

TheTurtleMan:

Could I ask you whether you feel any difference in sexual experiences as someone who has uh, played for both teams? Is it still just as good or can you tell any noticeable differences?

Dude, he had surgery 12 hours ago! I think sex is probably a sore subject right about now.

Hey I'm not askin for a steamy night of romance and passionate love making, I'm just askin him to take one for team and squeeze one out in the bathroom with the lights off. All in the name of science of course!

It takes a while for the nerves to desensitize. At maximum, a couple years, but it will diminish.

evilthecat:

hardlymotivated:
If you want to talk about female circumcision as well, fair enough, but I'd be rather surprised if anybody came out as being in favour of it.

I personally think it's misleading to equate female genetical mutilation/female genital cutting with female circumcision.

Women do have a prepuce, which is analogous to a male foreskin, and it is often removed during FGM, but because the external part of the clitoris is also removed (called a clitoridectomy) it's more akin to what on a male body would be termed 'emasculation' or 'infibulation' (depending on precisely how it's done).

I'm not going to come out in favour of it, but I will say that the standard narrative of FGM (that domineering men come and chop off their daughters clitorises so they will remain pure and chaste and not have sex) is quite wrong and a little offensive. It's a much, much more complicated issue than just "barbaric" people mutilating women to keep them in line.

Danyal:
By the way, it is not an Islamic practice! :D

Of course not. Clitoridectomy was a fairly routine procedure in Europe and America until the early 20th century, used to treat "conditions" like homosexuality, nymphomania and masturbation.

In fact, noone in countries where FGM is common believes that it's about stopping women having sex. That's only the reason why it was done in our culture.

THANK YOU for putting those stupid FGM misconceptions to bed.

This issue has inspired my latest work:

The last thing Id ever figure

Is me wanting to cut up my dick

But it does make it look bigger

And that is freaking sick

-Holla

Treeinthewoods:
There is also a chance someone who is not decided may read my post so I want people to be aware that there truly are medically valid reasons to circumcise. The general position of this board is probably fairly split but I noticed in prior threads that the anti-circumcision group works very diligently to belittle and shout down opposing points of view. I have no interest in arguing with zealots, simply in stating my opinion for people on the fence to consider.

It is true, circumcision is medical indicated for recurrenct balanitis, UTI or true phimosis. That is I agree something that true anti-circumcision "zealots" do ignore.

Circumcision is an issue that is even divisive inside the Medical community, but it is important to note that the Canadian Pediatric Society and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians both suggest that routine circumcision is unnessecary http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8634956 and http://www.racp.edu.au/page/policy-and-advocacy/paediatrics-and-child-health unless indicated. The American Academy of Pediatrics is more undecided wanting more information on the issue. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10049981

evilthecat:

Danyal:
By the way, it is not an Islamic practice! :D

Of course not. Clitoridectomy was a fairly routine procedure in Europe and America until the early 20th century, used to treat "conditions" like homosexuality, nymphomania and masturbation.

In fact, noone in countries where FGM is common believes that it's about stopping women having sex. That's only the reason why it was done in our culture.

Something being done by non-Muslims doesn't mean it's not-Islamic...

And I'm sorry, but you're wrong if you say that it's not done to stop women from having sex.

FGM is often motivated by beliefs about what is considered proper sexual behaviour, linking procedures to premarital virginity and marital fidelity. FGM is in many communities believed to reduce a woman's libido and therefore believed to help her resist "illicit" sexual acts. When a vaginal opening is covered or narrowed (type 3 above), the fear of the pain of opening it, and the fear that this will be found out, is expected to further discourage "illicit" sexual intercourse among women with this type of FGM.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/index.html

And it's also seen as religious...

Though no religious scripts prescribe the practice, practitioners often believe the practice has religious support.
Religious leaders take varying positions with regard to FGM: some promote it, some consider it irrelevant to religion, and others contribute to its elimination.
Local structures of power and authority, such as community leaders, religious leaders, circumcisers, and even some medical personnel can contribute to upholding the practice.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/index.html

Muhammad didn't say anything about FGM while he probably knew about it (because it already happened a lot in his time). Because he didn't ban it, a lot of cultures where it already happened then saw it as Islamic. (Muhammad told you how to wipe your ass, so if he does know about something but doesn't regulate it, he clearly doesn't have any problems with it)

And there is a very high correlation between the amount of Muslims in a country and the amount of women being genitally mutilated;
image
image

hardlymotivated:
Hello all.

Hey!

I think the only way to do (male) circumcision right is the way you did it; voluntarily, and at an age of consent. It is not a practice I endorse, but have no problems with adults choosing to circumcize themselves. I am not circumcized, I wasn't baptised either. For me the consent part weighs heaviest in these cases. So, for anyone under 20, I'd say no.

Cheers.

ElectroJosh:
For my two cents:

It happened to me and I am not too upset over it. However I know that it does reduce sensation and is unecessary so I feel it was pointless ultimately (and sex may feel even better if it hadn't happened).

For my own two cents (bringing us to a total of four whole cents which could buy us a coupla little sweeties!) and in the hopes that you might feel a little better, in my (albeit not that huge) experience, the sensitivity of uncircumcised guys is not a good thing. Maybe I'm doing it wrong?... but they all complained at some point or other about it being so sensitive to the point of it becoming unpleasant, almost painful, and we'd have to just stop whatever we're doing. My current, circumcised boyfriend, however, (had surgery when he was four because of an infection) has been nothing but WOWEE THIS IS THE BEST FEELING EVER LET'S NEVER STOP.

TheTurtleMan:

hardlymotivated:
- snip - (that shortner seems wrong in this thread)

Could I ask you whether you feel any difference in sexual experiences as someone who has uh, played for both teams? Is it still just as good or can you tell any noticeable differences?

Actually, yeah, (after he's recovered, of course,) it might be interesting to know. Although if he had to get it done because of severe phimosis, likelyhood is that sexytime wasn't hugely fun for him before the surgery.

Maybe someone with better Googling skills than I could find a story from someone in a similar position...

ElectroJosh:
For my two cents:

It happened to me and I am not too upset over it. However I know that it does reduce sensation and is unecessary so I feel it was pointless ultimately (and sex may feel even better if it hadn't happened).

I do consider it a form of genital mutilation but in no way is it the equivalent of female "circumcision". That would be like having the whole head of my penis chopped off and my scrotum sliced up so that I would find any and all sex somewhere between boring and painful.

I've always wondered how they test that claim, and how someone who was circumcised young would ever know the difference/care. I was circumcised as an infant and sex is fantastic.

Nigh Invulnerable:

ElectroJosh:
For my two cents:

It happened to me and I am not too upset over it. However I know that it does reduce sensation and is unecessary so I feel it was pointless ultimately (and sex may feel even better if it hadn't happened).

I do consider it a form of genital mutilation but in no way is it the equivalent of female "circumcision". That would be like having the whole head of my penis chopped off and my scrotum sliced up so that I would find any and all sex somewhere between boring and painful.

I've always wondered how they test that claim, and how someone who was circumcised young would ever know the difference/care. I was circumcised as an infant and sex is fantastic.

they claim that because by removing the foreskin, you are removing thousands of nerves and nerve endings, and your glans is constantly exposed instead of protected. there really isn't a way to test pleasure though.

Nigh Invulnerable:

ElectroJosh:
For my two cents:

It happened to me and I am not too upset over it. However I know that it does reduce sensation and is unecessary so I feel it was pointless ultimately (and sex may feel even better if it hadn't happened).

I do consider it a form of genital mutilation but in no way is it the equivalent of female "circumcision". That would be like having the whole head of my penis chopped off and my scrotum sliced up so that I would find any and all sex somewhere between boring and painful.

I've always wondered how they test that claim, and how someone who was circumcised young would ever know the difference/care. I was circumcised as an infant and sex is fantastic.

Guys who get it done as adults probably report a decrease in sensitivity.

But, yes as someone who's had it done a birth, i've never noticed/cared. Getting circumcised much later in life seems like it would be a good deal more traumatic and that's one reason why i'm not necessarily opposed to circumcision at birth.

Since alot of people here seem to really not know what medicine actually thinks about it.

http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/circumcision

http://kidshealth.org/parent/system/surgical/circumcision.html

they say that there are benefits, but that there is not enough to argue for or against, especially seeing as how we're now starting to routinely use some kind of pain relief before chopping

TheMatsjo:

hardlymotivated:
Hello all.

Hey!

I think the only way to do (male) circumcision right is the way you did it; voluntarily, and at an age of consent. It is not a practice I endorse, but have no problems with adults choosing to circumcize themselves. I am not circumcized, I wasn't baptised either. For me the consent part weighs heaviest in these cases. So, for anyone under 20, I'd say no.

Cheers.

In many ways, it's a double-edged sword whether done in infancy or as an adult in that both have some distinct disadvantages. As an infant, you have no way to give consent (and I can't really refute anything @Elcarsh typed in his post), and I'm led to believe that there are more complications with anaesthetising infants during the actual surgery. On the other hand, they're unlikely to remember too much of it later in life.

With adults, although the issue of consent is sorted, the recovery period is meant to be longer and more of an ordeal. My apologies if you're squeamish, but any sort of physical contact with my glans at the moment is pretty much unbearable.

As I said earlier, I wish I'd been circumcised as a child, but that's a selfish concern. I agree with you with regards to the consent part weighing heaviest; as a general rule, I'd prefer if children were not routinely circumcised at birth even though for me it'd have resulted in fewer issues (in my case, unfortunately, both mental and physical).

Thanks for posting.

Elcarsh:
It is really quite difficult to be civilized on a topic that regards such a cruel and barbaric practice. Really, there is nothing more to it. It is the pointless infliction of pain on those who can in no way whatsoever defend themselves or refuse.

I always find it baffling that people get so worked up about male circumcision. Unlike female genital cutting, it doesn't cause long-term pain, doesn't meaningfully affect risks of infetion or disease, and has little to no impact on make sexual performance. Most importantly, it cannot be used as a tool for controling males' sexual behavior.

So opposing it on the grounds that it is unnessecary makes sense, but to launch into that sort of hysterics ("cruel and barbaric"?!) strikes me as an acknowledgement that the issue is less about the actual issue of circumcision and more about either squeamishness about bladed implements near the penis or a general resentment of religion.

To me this is little different from a parent who would get thier child's ears pierced. It's unnessecary and seems a bit strange to me, but to really get worked up about it seems equally bizarre.

*shrug*

I got circumcised as a kid. I had lots of urinary tract infections. My younger brother had it done pretty much right after birth.

It hasn't hurt me in any way, but still, I don't think I'd do it to my kid unless there is a good medical reason. It seems kinda unneeded otherwise.

Katatori-kun:
-snip-

Here we go again. Any opposition to aspects of religion, even the more casually cruel rituals? Oh, that'll just be male insecurity combined with irrational hatred of religion, as per usual. Nothing to see here, move along.

Katatori-kun:
I always find it baffling that people get so worked up about male circumcision. Unlike female genital cutting, it doesn't cause long-term pain, doesn't meaningfully affect risks of infetion or disease, and has little to no impact on make sexual performance. Most importantly, it cannot be used as a tool for controling males' sexual behavior.

So opposing it on the grounds that it is unnessecary makes sense, but to launch into that sort of hysterics ("cruel and barbaric"?!) strikes me as an acknowledgement that the issue is less about the actual issue of circumcision and more about either squeamishness about bladed implements near the penis or a general resentment of religion.

To me this is little different from a parent who would get thier child's ears pierced. It's unnessecary and seems a bit strange to me, but to really get worked up about it seems equally bizarre.

You can attempt to dismiss it however you like, that doesn't matter. Circumcision is the act of inflicting excrutiating pain on a human being who is completely and utterly defenseless. If there is a better word than "Barbaric" to describe that, then I haven't heard it.

There is no way around the fact that the issue is about torturing a living human being for no reason whatsoever. Screw that, it's never okay!

Katatori-kun:

Elcarsh:
It is really quite difficult to be civilized on a topic that regards such a cruel and barbaric practice. Really, there is nothing more to it. It is the pointless infliction of pain on those who can in no way whatsoever defend themselves or refuse.

I always find it baffling that people get so worked up about male circumcision. Unlike female genital cutting, it doesn't cause long-term pain, doesn't meaningfully affect risks of infetion or disease, and has little to no impact on make sexual performance. Most importantly, it cannot be used as a tool for controling males' sexual behavior.

So opposing it on the grounds that it is unnessecary makes sense, but to launch into that sort of hysterics ("cruel and barbaric"?!) strikes me as an acknowledgement that the issue is less about the actual issue of circumcision and more about either squeamishness about bladed implements near the penis or a general resentment of religion.

To me this is little different from a parent who would get thier child's ears pierced. It's unnessecary and seems a bit strange to me, but to really get worked up about it seems equally bizarre.

I'd mostly agree with that. I would say that doing it to kids without their consent is definitely a bad thing, but that it receives more than its fair share of attention.

Batou667:

Katatori-kun:
-snip-

Here we go again. Any opposition to aspects of religion, even the more casually cruel rituals? Oh, that'll just be male insecurity combined with irrational hatred of religion, as per usual. Nothing to see here, move along.

No matter how many times that you try to make that story stick, it won't magically become true.

I never said there was a problem with opposing circumcision. I even said that some forms of opposition to it make sense. I just said that the hysterics about it were rather OTT.

I know you're desperate to invent this religion-defender persona for me because you can then just pigeon-hole me into "the other side" and use that as an excuse to not read my posts, but you would do it better if the narrative you're trying to construct wasn't directly in opposition to what I wrote in the post preceding yours. It's pretty obvious already that you aren't reading my posts, so why make up an excuse for it?

Elcarsh:
You can attempt to dismiss it however you like, that doesn't matter. Circumcision is the act of inflicting excrutiating pain on a human being who is completely and utterly defenseless. If there is a better word than "Barbaric" to describe that, then I haven't heard it.

There is no way around the fact that the issue is about torturing a living human being for no reason whatsoever. Screw that, it's never okay!

Again, you're relying on all of these emotive, expressive adjectives to describe something that thousands of us have gone through without being affected in the slightest. You would make a much more convincing argument by presenting some factual information rather than trying to convince me I've been tortured simply because I don't have a foreskin. It's rather absurd.

Katatori-kun:

Again, you're relying on all of these emotive, expressive adjectives to describe something that thousands of us have gone through without being affected in the slightest. You would make a much more convincing argument by presenting some factual information rather than trying to convince me I've been tortured simply because I don't have a foreskin. It's rather absurd.

The foreskin contains the most nerve endings in the human body. By removing it you're removing what is essentially the most sensitive part of the male penis. There are also numerous complications that can arise from circumcision since, you know, it's surgery. For crying out loud, It's SURGERY done for absolutely NO REASON on a BABY. A FUCKING BABY! It's a needless exposure to risk at a critical time in a person's life. That should be more than enough to ban infant circumcision. There are numerous other arguments against it but I believe the whole "unnecessary surgery on an infant" aspect is not emphasized enough.

thaluikhain:
I'd mostly agree with that. I would say that doing it to kids without their consent is definitely a bad thing, but that it receives more than its fair share of attention.

Agreed.

Now maybe my experience is not representative of the norm, but I never heard Elcarsh-style hysteria over male circumcision until after the issue of female genital mutilation gained traction in the western press. And it strikes me as odd that with the exception of evilthecat, Muspelheim, and myself, no one in this thread has even brought up FGM or if they have they have tried to link infant male circumcision with it, as though they were equally traumatic. Which is frankly absurd.

PercyBoleyn:
For crying out loud, It's SURGERY done for absolutely NO REASON on a BABY. A FUCKING BABY!

Remember that bit I said about using facts as opposed to appeals to emotion? You might want to read it again.

And while my junk is none of your business, let me assure you that despite being circumcised it is plenty sensitive, functional, and aesthetically pleasing (ladies...)

Katatori-kun:
Remember that bit I said about using facts as opposed to appeals to emotion? You might want to read it again.

And while my junk is none of your business, let me assure you that despite being circumcised it is plenty sensitive, functional, and aesthetically pleasing (ladies...)

I did use facts. Surgery has inherent risks, even moreso when done on infants. The exageration at the end has its merits, after all performing unnecessary surgery on infants is just plain wrong.

PercyBoleyn:
I did use facts.

You did not. "The foreskin contains the most nerve endings in the human body." This is an irrelevant factoid that says nothing about the degree of pain inflicted by circumcision nor about the quality of life possible after circumcision.

PercyBoleyn:
after all performing unnecessary surgery on infants is just plain wrong.

And here we get to the rub of it. You have declared this surgery to be unnecessary simply because it's not a part of your personal culture. You have no right to make such a declaration. You are not the authority on what is "necessary."

Katatori-kun:
This is an irrelevant factoid that says nothing about the degree of pain inflicted by circumcision nor about the quality of life possible after circumcision.

Uhm, yes it does? The foreskin is there for a reason. Cutting it off without permission is just plain wrong.

Katatori-kun:
And here we get to the rub of it. You have declared this surgery to be unnecessary simply because it's not a part of your personal culture. You have no right to make such a declaration. You are not the authority on what is "necessary."

So we should allow female genital mutilation to continue in Africa because it's part of their culture? From a medical point of view this surgery is unnecessary and that's the only thing that matters. If people deem it necessary and want to be part of your culture they'll be free to do so once they reach the age of consent.

PercyBoleyn:

Katatori-kun:
This is an irrelevant factoid that says nothing about the degree of pain inflicted by circumcision nor about the quality of life possible after circumcision.

Uhm, yes it does? The foreskin is there for a reason. Cutting it off without permission is just plain wrong.

Katatori-kun:
And here we get to the rub of it. You have declared this surgery to be unnecessary simply because it's not a part of your personal culture. You have no right to make such a declaration. You are not the authority on what is "necessary."

So we should allow female genital mutilation to continue in Africa because it's part of their culture? From a medical point of view this surgery is unnecessary and that's the only thing that matters. If people deem it necessary and want to be part of your culture they'll be free to do so once they reach the age of consent.

the necessity of a circumcision is currently deemed as unknown. since both sides of the argument do have facts that support both sides, there are benefits to being cut as well as cons and vice versa. right now necessity of circumcision is based on personal belief.

Katatori-kun:
Remember that bit I said about using facts as opposed to appeals to emotion?

Not mutilating your kids has become an irrational appeal to emotion these days?

keiskay:
the necessity of a circumcision is currently deemed as unknown. since both sides of the argument do have facts that support both sides, there are benefits to being cut as well as cons and vice versa. right now necessity of circumcision is based on personal belief.

I'd disagree with that. Proponents have a pretty far fetched case based mostly on speculation and mostly irrelevant stuff. The often cited supposed hygiene gain may or may not have been true in medieval times or before, but today, with baths, showers, cleaning agents, soap and what not, it has become irrelevant.

Blablahb:

Katatori-kun:
Remember that bit I said about using facts as opposed to appeals to emotion?

Not mutilating your kids has become an irrational appeal to emotion these days?

keiskay:
the necessity of a circumcision is currently deemed as unknown. since both sides of the argument do have facts that support both sides, there are benefits to being cut as well as cons and vice versa. right now necessity of circumcision is based on personal belief.

I'd disagree with that. Proponents have a pretty far fetched case based mostly on speculation and mostly irrelevant stuff. The often cited supposed hygiene gain may or may not have been true in medieval times or before, but today, with baths, showers, cleaning agents, soap and what not, it has become irrelevant.

i wasnt talking about the hygene aspects but more or less about this.

A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
A reduced risk of sexually transmitted diseases in men.
Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).

PercyBoleyn:

Katatori-kun:
This is an irrelevant factoid that says nothing about the degree of pain inflicted by circumcision nor about the quality of life possible after circumcision.

Uhm, yes it does? The foreskin is there for a reason. Cutting it off without permission is just plain wrong.

Yay, more appeals to emotion.

So we should allow female genital mutilation to continue in Africa because it's part of their culture?

Can you try not to make insultingly facile arguments please? I never said anything of the sort, and you know it. FGM is demonstrably different from infant male circumcision, as evidenced by the fact that later in life negative effects of FGM are common, while in infant male circumcision they are nigh-unheard of.

It's quite despicable of you to try and link the two. Is this yet another issue men have to steal and make all about them?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked