Circumcision

Denzil2222

Why on earth do so many americans have their baby boys circumcised ?

arybvtcw0eolkf

Well for the circumsizer then tips can be good :pac:

Although I did hear of a blind circumsizer - he got the sack.

Jumpy

Because it prevents possible issues later in life. Also a hygiene thing.

Please dont answer how easy it is to keep clean. No one really cares that you are cheese free. It is the reason behind a large amount of procedures.

Mr Benevolent

They're Jewish or enjoy hurting their kids.

Jumpy

Plus, KP has to make Hula Hoops out of something.

Noodleworm

It was originally a Jewish thing, carried on by Christians to stop little boys playing with themselves. Then they got it into there heads that its cleaner etc because there too lazy to pull back the skin to wash...

Orange69

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNrvorxZp7s

Chinasea

I believe it is a Jewish/American stance. I was very disappointed with Miss Christina Aguilera went and got her baby circumcised. I thought that Miss Aguilera was a progressive young woman but turns out she just did what her husband’s traditions expected. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to have this ghastly operation performed (of course there are medical exceptions).

Scoobydoobydoo

I believe they do it for hygiene purposes. I think it's mutilation if it's not a medical necessity.

PeterIanStaker

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A0RFDm8_rE

Jumpy

Jumpy wrote: »

Because it prevents possible issues later in life. Also a hygiene thing.

Please dont answer how easy it is to keep clean. No one really cares that you are cheese free. It is the reason behind a large amount of procedures.

Noodleworm wrote: »

It was originally a Jewish thing, carried on by Christians to stop little boys playing with themselves. Then they got it into there heads that its cleaner etc because there too lazy to pull back the skin to wash...

My predictions ... they have come truuuuuue.

Donkey Oaty

For people who like to scroll up the birth cert, it saves on having to buy an elastic band.

Sanjuro

Well, it's an issue that cuts right to the bone...r.

Thirdfox

Jumpy wrote: »

Because it prevents possible issues later in life. Also a hygiene thing.

Please dont answer how easy it is to keep clean. No one really cares that you are cheese free. It is the reason behind a large amount of procedures.

That's assuming that smegma itself is "dirty" when in actual fact it is a natural bodily lubricant with anti-bacterial effects. Excessive build up will be a problem of course but excessive anything is a problem.

AH response: Perhaps people don't want to be so sensitive? Americans can't keep it in under the extra stimulation? Down with Male Genital Mutilation!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/07/circumcision_male_genital_muti_1.html

And it seems that the circumcision rate is a lot lower now in the US (56% in 2005).

twinQuins

Jumpy wrote: »

Because it prevents possible issues later in life.

Which are only issues for a minority and even then there are usually alternatives to circumcision.

Also a hygiene thing.

Like surgically removing your fingernails instead of cleaning them regularly is more hygenic, yes.

Please dont answer how easy it is to keep clean.

Then don't bring up hygiene in the first place.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

The piece of forskin that is discarded is known as 'schmuck'

mikom

Denzil2222 wrote: »

Why on earth do so many americans have their baby boys circumcised ?

They love their tips over there.

MagicMarker

Because they're idiots.

CrazyRabbit

It's much less common know. Some estimates have it at less than 40% of boys being circumcised now, and it's apparently declining. The story I read gave an interesting reason for this. They say it was due to the poor economy and people not being able to afford to pay hospitals to carry out the procedure.

Dean820

I'm in between two minds about circumcision. I can see both points of view. Still though, the poor baby must be in so much pain when they do the operation on him, it seems unnecessary.

Overheal

Dean820 wrote: »

I'm in between two minds about circumcision. I can see both points of view. Still though, the poor baby must be in so much pain when they do the operation on him, it seems unnecessary.

Not sure about this. It's still a sterile, surgical procedure. I would think it's actually harder post-puberty to endure, what with sexual arousal and all that. Between the two extremes, the newborn gets the better deal on the pain factor. Not that they aren't ever going to remember it either way.

Tzetze

I think Hitchens manages to hit the subject squarely on it's head...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X70ss7vsS_c

Hitchens in his book God is not great wrote:

In more recent times, some pseudosecular arguments have been adduced for male circumcision. It has been argued that the process is more hygienic for the male and thus more healthy for females in helping them avoid, for example, cervical cancer. Medicine has exploded these claims or else revealed them as problems which can just as easily be solved by a “loosening” of the foreskin. Full excision, originally ordered by god as the blood price for the promised future massacre of the Canaanites, is now exposed for what it is — a mutilation of a powerless infant with the aim of ruining its future sex life. The connection between religious barbarism and sexual repression could not be plainer than when it is “marked in the flesh.” Who can count the number of lives that have been made miserable in this way, especially since Christian doctors began to adopt ancient Jewish folklore in their hospitals? And who can bear to read the medical textbooks and histories which calmly record the number of boy babies who died from infection after their eighth day, or who suffered gross and unbearable dysfunction and disfigurement? The record of syphilitic and other infection, from rotting rabbinical teeth or other rabbinical indiscretions, or of clumsy slitting of the urethra and sometimes a vein, is simply dreadful. And it is permitted in New York in 2006! If religion and its arrogance were not involved, no healthy society would permit this primitive amputation, or allow any surgery to be practiced on the genitalia without the full and informed consent of the person concerned.

scientific1982

I had it done when I was 8 for medical reasons. It stung after for a few days but I was lucky enough to be knocked out for the actual operation. Circumcising babies is just plain wrong imo. They cant be anesthetized and being babies their nervous system is super charged. Must be agony for the poor ****ers.

Daisy Steiner

My nephew had to be circumcised before he was 2 years old. His fore-skin was too tight and was causing him pain. The doc said better to do it earlier rather than later. The poor little mite was so sore after it but recovered within a few days.

I was in hospital when I was 12/13, was in the same room as a 7/8 year-old boy who had it done. Poor fella bawled for 10 hours straight after the op .

galwayrush

Don't pay to have it done, it's a bloody rip off.

Terry

Needless cosmetic surgery.
A barbaric ritual from biblical times which has no place in today's society.
People get up in arms about FGM, but apparently it's ok for men to have part of their genitalia removed.

Overheal wrote: »

Not sure about this. It's still a sterile, surgical procedure. I would think it's actually harder post-puberty to endure, what with sexual arousal and all that. Between the two extremes, the newborn gets the better deal on the pain factor. Not that they aren't ever going to remember it either way.

Were you circumcised? If so, how do you feel about it?
Would you prefer to have had the option yourself?

About 20 years ago one of the neighbour kids had to be circumcised for medical reasons. His mother was telling myself and a friend about it and how she felt so sorry for him because of the pain he was in.
Two minutes later the kid walks out of the house and says "Mammy, me willy's sore. Will ya kiss it better".

The three of us fell around the place laughing. Couldn't help it. It was just the innocent way in which he asked the question.

rubadub

Terry wrote: »

People get up in arms about FGM, but apparently it's ok for men to have part of their genitalia removed.

Yes, its quite strange that it is so accepted.

Even if there is a medical need it could often be treated by stretching the foreskin, but I suppose this might require a few doctors visits to check on progress, so why not just butcher the child and save a bit of time.

Cutting off part of your gentials full of nerve endings which give sexual pleasure, and skin that keeps the glans more sensitive should be an absolute last resort. Many men are trying to restore their foreskin.

Ronin247

A lot of American doctors are of a certain religion and push the circumcision agenda on confused new parents.

On a lighter note Hale and Pace had a song about circumcision,

one two drip on my shoe,
three four not any more.

yank_in_eire

Don't know about the pain - I don't remember it - but it sure gets me a load of attention in the pub:p

The way they do it now is similar to removing lamb's tails they just put a band around it until the extra bit dies and falls off:eek:

Torres9

I got it done the day after I was born...















couldn't walk for a year after

:pac:

RMD

I can pull me foreskin up to my belly button. I'd like to see 1 of them freaks try and copy my party trick :pac:

Because butchering your children is the cool thing to do

W.Shakes-Beer

RMD wrote: »

I can pull me foreskin up to my belly button. I'd like to see 1 of them freaks try and copy my party trick :pac:

does your flute look like this?

Terry

rubadub wrote: »

Yes, its quite strange that it is so accepted.

Even if there is a medical need it could often be treated by stretching the foreskin, but I suppose this might require a few doctors visits to check on progress, so why not just butcher the child and save a bit of time.

Cutting off part of your gentials full of nerve endings which give sexual pleasure, and skin that keeps the glans more sensitive should be an absolute last resort. Many men are trying to restore their foreskin.

It grows back?

W.Shakes-Beer

Terry wrote: »

It grows back?

i think they try to push the head back on itself to give the "effect" of foreskin, but if they push too far they will be left with a gee or somewhere to store a pencil or two.

rubadub

Terry wrote: »

It grows back?

Sort of, they stretch it so the skin further down grows longer and in effect becomes a foreskin, I think it restores some of the sensitivity to the glans/tip.


Reading on wiki it seems it can be done surgically too, and some Jews did it to avoid the Nazis.
Warning- some pics of flutes!

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

galwayrush

Terry wrote: »

It grows back?

If something grows back there, be very ****ing worried and go straight to a doctor.:eek:

W.Shakes-Beer

Holy ****! That poor guy halfway down on the right.

tony1kenobi

Denzil2222 wrote: »

Why on earth do so many americans have their baby boys circumcised ?

If they wait till the child can talk they'd be told to f*ck off.

Prof.Badass

Jumpy wrote: »

Because it prevents possible issues later in life. Also a hygiene thing.

Circumcision does not prevent masturbation, it just makes it less fun. Stupid, pointless, morally backwards procedure.

Overheal

Terry wrote:

Were you circumcised? If so, how do you feel about it?
Would you prefer to have had the option yourself?

I was circumcised for clinical reasons. My siblings were not circumcised. So it wasn't a Cosmetic Issue.

It grows back?

Not in the traditional sense. But I could see how you could stretch your skin. The same could be said of anywhere on your skin. I've done no research into this, mind but when you think about earrings and such.

orourkeda

Denzil2222 wrote: »

Why on earth do so many americans have their baby boys circumcised ?

because they're jewish?

MonkeyBalls

There are about 20,000 nerves in the foreskin, and only about 4,000 in the head (of ze penis).

Involuntary circumcision is genital mutilation. I pity the poor bastards who, as a innocent child, had part of their cocks chopped off.

It reduces sexual pleasure, which is no laughing matter. And the vast majority of circumcised people will try to delude themselves into believing that they'd choose to have it that way. How else are they to cope. And it gets perpetuated, needlessly. This practise needs to end.

Subtle Troll

Ignorance.

2 stroke

Doctors wanted to circumcise me as a child "for medical reasons". I'm still intact, and won't be booking myself in, as long as I'm capable of enjoying pleasure.
Circumcision is misguided, barbaric and unnecessary in most cases.

policarp

It's supposed to be the kindest cut.
Breaks the frenum and makes sex easier.

Lily10

Subtle Troll wrote: »

Ignorance.

Totally agree. I've been living in the US for years now and you wouldn't believe how clueless they are about it over here. A lot of them are not even aware that EVERY male is not circumcised. As for the ones that are aware it's not the norm in europe, if it's a man - he uses it as a chat up line "hey, wanna see my ...blah blah blah" if it's a woman - she wants you to tell her what an uncircumcised one looks like.. one girl even asked me to draw her a picture wtf!

I have asked mothers over here why they do it to their boys and the answer is always the same.. the dad wants the baby to look like him. Ugh. disturbing on so many levels.

krudler

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

There are about 20,000 nerves in the foreskin, and only about 4,000 in the head (of ze penis).

Involuntary circumcision is genital mutilation. I pity the poor bastards who, as a innocent child, had part of their cocks chopped off.

It reduces sexual pleasure, which is no laughing matter. And the vast majority of circumcised people will try to delude themselves into believing that they'd choose to have it that way. How else are they to cope. And it gets perpetuated, needlessly. This practise needs to end.

Says who?

MonkeyBalls

krudler wrote: »

Says who?

Common fcking sense, that's who

policarp

AFAIK It's a jewish thing.
The foreskin can harbour bacteria and if unwashed in hot climates can be nasty...
Why circumcission? Why not body piercing, tattoos, foot binding,burkas loads of other stigmata that we think of as normal nowadays?

rubadub

policarp wrote: »

It's supposed to be the kindest cut.
Breaks the frenum and makes sex easier.

"kindest cut" WTF:eek:
The frenulum is not always cut, and if you do want it cut you can do it without need for circumcision.

krudler wrote: »

Says who?

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/

Structural Changes
Among the structural changes circumcised men may have to live with are surgical complications such as skin tags, penile curvature due to uneven foreskin removal, pitted glans, partial glans ablation, prominent/jagged scarring, amputation neuromas, fistulas, severely damaged frenulum, meatal stenosis, and excessive keratinisation. In addition, Immerman and Mackey (1998) and Prescott (1989) postulated that severing of erogenous sensory nerve endings in the foreskin during infancy leads to atrophy of non-stimulated neurons in the brain's pleasure centre during the critical developmental period.Gemmell and Boyle (2001) surveyed 162 self-selected men (121 circumcised; 41 intact) and found that circumcised men reported significantly less penile sensation as compared with genitally intact men. Participants rated their current level of penile sensation (on a scale from 1 to 10) as compared with that experienced at age 18 years (allocated 10 out of 10). Circumcised men complained significantly more often than did genitally intact men of a progressive decline in penile sensation throughout their adult years--presumably due to increasing keratinisation of the exposed glans and inner foreskin remnant in circumcised men. Gemmell and Boyle also found that a significantly higher proportion of circumcised as compared with intact men reported bowing or curvature of the penis (also reported by Lawrence, 1997), shaft skin uncomfortably/painfully tight when erect, and scars/damage to the penis. Although the frenulum was reported as an area of heightened erogenous sensitivity, in the typical circumcised male, either no frenulum remains or only a small severely damaged remnant exists. The complex innervation of the foreskin and frenulum has been well-documented (Cold & McGrath, 1999; Cold & Taylor, 1999; Fleiss, 1997; Taylor et al., 1996), and the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings--many of which are lost to circumcision, with an inevitable reduction in sexual sensation experienced by circumcised males (Immerman & Mackey, 1998; O'Hara & O'Hara, 1999).

Functional Changes
There are also serious functional consequences of circumcision. Impaired sexual functioning was reported by 84% of respondents in a survey of circumcised men (Hammond, 1997). Taylor, Lockwood, and Taylor (1996) provided anatomical and histological support for these self-reports of circumcised men by documenting the irreplaceable loss of specialised erogenous mucosa through circumcision. Further difficulties attributed to circumcision included intimacy problems (45%) and addiction/dependency problems (26%). Specific physical problems reported included glans insensitivity (55%), need for excess stimulation to enable ejaculation (38%), prominent scarring (29%), and insufficient residual shaft skin to accommodate full, untethered erections (27%).

Circumcised males may also be at risk of premature ejaculation, or alternatively may have to resort to prolonged thrusting during intercourse in order to stimulate sufficiently the residual erogenous penile nerve endings to trigger ejaculation (Bensley & Boyle, 2001). They report that the unnatural dryness of their circumcised penis often makes coitus painful, resulting in chafing and/or skin abrasions (Gemmell & Boyle, 2001). Concomitantly, O'Hara and O'Hara (1999) found that female partners reported significantly greater sexual pleasure from intercourse with genitally intact men as compared with circumcised men. Money and Davison (1983) had previously documented a loss of stretch receptors in the prepuce and frenulum and an associated diminution in sexual response, thereby restricting a circumcised man's ability to achieve arousal. Consequently, erectile dysfunction may be a complication of male circumcision (Glover, 1929; Ozkara, Asicioglu, Alici, Akkus, & Hattat, 1999; Palmer & Link, 1979; Stief, Thon, Djamilian, Allhoff, & Jonas, 1992; Stinson, 1973).

Bensley and Boyle (2001) surveyed women and gay men who had previously had sexual intercourse with both genitally intact and circumcised men. Bensley and Boyle's samples comprised 35 women, and 42 gay men. In addition they surveyed 83 self-selected men (53 circumcised; 30 genitally intact) who provided self-reports regarding their sexual and psychological functioning. The overall results (women partners and gay male partners combined) were that circumcised partners were significantly less happy about their sexual functioning than were genitally intact partners.

In Bensley and Boyle's (2001) study, sexual dysfunction was more often reported by circumcised men who complained either of premature ejaculation (with little sexual sensation), and/or difficulty in gaining or maintaining an erection--the two most prevalent forms of erectile dysfunction. Reduced or insufficient neural feedback may account for circumcised men's inability to detect the moment when ejaculation is imminent. Premature ejaculation previously has been ascribed to learning or conditioning factors. For example, where a teenage boy is raised in an environment in which sexual pleasure is regarded as "sinful or dirty" he may have to hurry masturbation in order to avoid being "caught in the act." Premature ejaculation would therefore be negatively reinforced by avoiding an aversive or punitive consequence (cf. Schwartz & Reisberg, 1991, pp. 121-122). However, information is now emerging on the role of the prepuce in preventing premature ejaculation, wherein the foreskin serves to protect the corona of the glans penis from direct stimulation during intercourse (Halata & Munger, 1986; Zwang, 1997). Overall, circumcised men expressed significantly greater dissatisfaction with their sex lives than did genitally intact men. This result is consistent with the findings by Hammond (1997, 1999), and O'Hara and O'Hara (1999), that circumcision may impede psychosexual and emotional intimacy between partners.