Male circumcision...mutilation?

Wibbs

sensibleken wrote: »

havent they heard of cornflakes

Funny enough Mr Kellogg him of the cornflakes, was big into the practice. Considered it a protection against the evils of onanism. A common belief in the medical profession in Victorian times and beyond. It then became medical fashion.

K4t wrote: »

Had it done when I was 8 for medical reasons and did experience cuts the first few times ****. It's not near as bad now but lube feels a hell of a lot better.

No wonder. The very thoughts of going near my uncut one without would cause me to freak out. :eek:

I'm glad I was circumcised tbh, I think it's more visually appealing than uncircumcised ones which repulse me for some reason even though I too used to have that foreskin..

That would be the porn talking I reckon. Since most yanks get snipped and most mainstream porn is American the idea of it's aesthetic qualities are entirely down to that fashion. To most civilised cultures male or female fettling of the genitals was considered beyond the pale. To the Romans or Greeks the very thought was considered barbarism of the highest order. Hence Christians who are basically an updated Jewish sect don't require it as part of their religion. The early Christians had long debates about it and the Jewish food restrictions, based loosely around the concept of "WTF you bloody barbarian weirdo?". The Muslims being more geographically close to Judaism continued the practice and the daft food restrictions. "Oh pork and shellfish can transmit disease you know?". Sod off, we've got fridges and better cooking techniques Ted.

Medically required? Cool beans, if other avenues prove fruitless. Non medical? Soon after birth? Barbarous religious/fashion nonsense. Go back to the bronze age.

CrazyRabbit

Teddy_Picker wrote: »

^^ Jesus. Fruitcake. Christ :eek:

What kind of arcane idiocy is that?

Welcome to the wonders of organised religion.

Coeurdepirate

bnt wrote: »

I think it's fairly obvious that the OP was not talking about circumcision as a necessary medical procedure, or as a voluntary choice. The very word "mutilation" implies a lack of choice in the matter. Consenting adults already do far worse things to themselves e.g. don't look up "bifurcation", with "safe mode" off, if you want to sleep tonight.

All I got was pictures of roads and graphs. I'm dying to know what it is now.

Turpentine

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

All I got was pictures of roads and graphs. I'm dying to know what it is now.

I think it's when you get your tongue split in half and each side can move independently.

I'd say it's handy if you've got two ice-creams and they're about to melt.

hatrickpatrick

Unless it's 100% medically necessary, or unless the person chooses it for himself, it's utterly barbaric and sick. Mutilation, pure and simple.

Non consensual mutilation of either male OR female genitals (or indeed other body parts) for anything other than absolutely essential medical purposes is despicable.

Turpentine

What I find most unnerving are the attempts by some to desperately search for supposed medical benefits to retrospectively justify a mutilation that has been done for purely religious reasons.

To somehow suggest, as I have seen in various places, that people are somehow anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim for suggesting that that you shouldn't chop bits off a newborn is also disturbing.

As a procedure I'm sure it had benefits if you lived in a desert with little access to bathing water, but in this day and age it's just pointless.

For medical reasons, tight foreskin etc, obviously it's a necessity.

It's a horrific thing to do a child for no reason other than ceremony.

thebigbiffo wrote: »

i love the fact i'm circumcised. i'm clean, sensitive and don't have this big f'ucking useless piece skin over the top of me japs.

I'm happy that you're happy with yourself, but a foreskin is not useless.

My appendix is useless, but I don't want that hacked out of me without good reason.

JohnMarston

Wibbs wrote: »

The Muslims being more geographically close to Judaism continued the practice and the daft food restrictions. "Oh pork and shellfish can transmit disease you know?". Sod off, we've got fridges and better cooking techniques Ted.

Medically required? Cool beans, if other avenues prove fruitless. Non medical? Soon after birth? Barbarous religious/fashion nonsense. Go back to the bronze age.

I agree

Seachmall

Turpentine wrote: »

but a foreskin is not useless.

Is it not? (I'm in work and don't want to google it in fear of what comes up).

One of my friends is cut, doesn't bother him one bit. It's a safe procedure that really doesn't affect your standard of life. Whichever way the parents want to go is fine with me.

Amhran Nua

Turpentine wrote: »

My appendix is useless

Apparently that serves as a backup reservoir for intestinal flora.

JohnMarston

Seachmall wrote: »

One of my friends is cut, doesn't bother him one bit. It's a safe procedure that really doesn't affect your standard of life. Whichever way the parents want to go is fine with me.

If it doesn't affect your standard of life why do it?

Seachmall

JohnMarston wrote: »

If it doesn't affect your standard of life why do it?

There's no reason to do it.

But if it's done to you when you're a kid it's not really a big issue.

Wibbs

Seachmall wrote: »

Is it not?

Nope it's not. There's a reason evolution left us with one. It's certainly not vestigial. Selection pressure on external genitals would be high. Hence one reason humans have the biggest willies among the great apes.

One of my friends is cut, doesn't bother him one bit. It's a safe procedure that really doesn't affect your standard of life. Whichever way the parents want to go is fine with me.

So its fine with you if some eejit performs a medically necessary procedure on a new born baby? Would you be cool with letting parents give their newborns belly button piercings? Or had their earlobes removed for "religious reasons"? Or newborn girls had their labia reduced? Right so why is this OK? Tradition?

sensibleken

Turpentine wrote: »

I think it's when you get your tongue split in half and each side can move independently.

I'd say it's handy if you've got two ice-creams and they're about to melt.

No, thats just called tongue splitting. Bi-furcation is splitting the glans in half. theres also sub-incission which is just splitting the length on the urethra underneath

Seachmall

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope it's not. There's a reason evolution left us with one. It's certainly not vestigial. Selection pressure on external genitals would be high. Hence one reason humans have the biggest willies among the great apes.
So its fine with you if some eejit performs a medically necessary procedure on a new born baby? Would you be cool with letting parents give their newborns belly button piercings? Or had their earlobes removed for "religious reasons"? Or newborn girls had their labia reduced? Right so why is this OK? Tradition?

Simply because circumcision is socially acceptable. If you had your ear-lobes removed you'd feel a bit insecure in school because everybody can see it and it's quite uncommon. With circumcision most people won't know and those that do know won't care. It has no negative social effects (imo anyway, others may disagree).

sensibleken

Is there anyone that is circunsised is bothered by it or has anything bad to say of their own experiences?

I am and im pretty happy with it

Solair

I just do not understand why this particular surgical procedure is treated differently from all others.

Normally, medical ethics and concepts of fundamental human rights to bodily integrity mean that surgeons will only carry out a procedure on a minor where there is a demonstrable medical need to carry it out i.e. it cures a disease / problem.

I don't really see why male circumcision is any different from say tonsillectomy or having your wisdom teeth out. It's a relatively minor operation, it's quite common but it should not be carried out for any non-medical reason on a minor.

In the vast majority of cases in Ireland, it is not carried out other than for medical reasons. This is not the case in the United States for example, where it remains routine for some strange reason that quackery about hygiene is still accepted as justification.

I don't really see the US attitude to male circumcision as much different to the warped Irish attitudes in hospitals in the past which led to symphysiotomy being carried out on women without consent.

As for the religious / cultural argument in favour of it. Quite honestly, I think it is bogus quackery and total b/s.

If someone wants to have this done for cultural / religious reasons, why can't he just wait until he is an adult and can consent to it as elective cosmetic surgery.

I was brought up as a Catholic but, I was never particularly religious and I am now an atheist and have no involvement whatsoever with the Catholic Church.

If I had been brought up Jewish or Muslim, I would quite likely have also decided that I wasn't following that particular belief system by the time I was in my teens. So, I would have been pretty annoyed if I'd had a surgical procedure carried out for religious reasons. Luckily, in my case it was only a matter of getting over a splash of holy-water and a bit of brainwashing (which never worked in the first place):D

I am totally opposed to the idea that any religious group can flout basic human rights laws and medical ethics simply because they feel that their religious beliefs override civil law and established medical ethical rules.

Do we live in 2011AD or 2011BC?

I'm quite honestly very surprised that more people don't sue where this was carried out without medical justification.

Quackery is quackery regardless of what the justification is!

smash

dotsman wrote: »

Actually, it is just as bad. They are both the same thing. FGM just gets far worse press here in the west as it is
a) not part of our culture
b) typically carried out by amateurs outside a clean medical environment without anaesthetics.
c) it's carried out on girls.

But ideologically, and biologically, they are the same thing.

Man go get some sex ed. The clitoris is NOT the same as the foreskin. Nowhere near the same thing. I actually can't believe you think that.

It gets bad press because they remove the clitoris, you know the thing that gives woman a fkn orgasm! Not just a bit of skin.

dotsman

steve06 wrote: »

Man go get some sex ed. The clitoris is NOT the same as the foreskin. Nowhere near the same thing. I actually can't believe you think that.

It gets bad press because they remove the clitoris, you know the thing that gives woman a fkn orgasm! Not just a bit of skin.

What the hell has sex education got to do with genital mutilation???

Perhaps it is you who needs the education. Circumcision in the Koran (which has been one of the main drivers of the practice) is the removal of the prepuce from both the male and female. On males, the prepuce is the foreskin, on females it is the clitoral hood. In both cases, the purpose of the prepuce is to protect the glands and expose them during sex. The reason for cutting them off is to "cleanse" the victim and the resulting physical effects are the same (reduced sexual pleasure).

Over the centuries, and especially in parts of Africa, the circumcision on females has been extended in some cases to include removal of the clitoris and even sewing of the labia.

The reason and result remains the same for both males and females. It is done to "cleanse" the victim and results in reduced sexual pleasure. I will agree (and as I already stated) that, due to female circumcision typically being "carried out by amateurs", the results can be more extreme on the female genitalia.

sensibleken

dotsman wrote: »

What the hell has sex education got to do with genital mutilation???

Perhaps it is you who needs the education. Circumcision in the Koran (which has been one of the main drivers of the practice) is the removal of the prepuce from both the male and female. On males, the prepuce is the foreskin, on females it is the clitoral hood. In both cases, the purpose of the prepuce is to protect the glands and expose them during sex. The reason for cutting them off is to "cleanse" the victim and the resulting physical effects are the same (reduced sexual pleasure).

Over the centuries, and especially in parts of Africa, the circumcision on females has been extended in some cases to include removal of the clitoris and even sewing of the labia.

The reason and result remains the same for both males and females. It is done to "cleanse" the victim and results in reduced sexual pleasure. I will agree (and as I already stated) that, due to female circumcision typically being "carried out by amateurs", the results can be more extreme on the female genitalia.

I think he understood you to mean the removal of the clitoris as opposed to removal of the clitoral hood. I think we can all agree removing the clitoris in total is incomparibly worse than circumcission

smash

dotsman wrote: »

What the hell has sex education got to do with genital mutilation???

Because removing the foreskin and removing the clitoris is not the same thing.

dotsman wrote: »

On males, the prepuce is the foreskin, on females it is the clitoral hood.

And when was the last time you heard of the hood being removed? Every time you hear about it, it's because they remove the clitoris and that's what we're talking about here.

dotsman wrote: »

I will agree (and as I already stated) that, due to female circumcision typically being "carried out by amateurs", the results can be more extreme on the female genitalia.

Even if it was carried out by professionals it's still barbaric!

Wibbs

Seachmall wrote: »

Simply because circumcision is socially acceptable. If you had your ear-lobes removed you'd feel a bit insecure in school because everybody can see it and it's quite uncommon. With circumcision most people won't know and those that do know won't care. It has no negative social effects (imo anyway, others may disagree).

Riiight so long as a practice is socially acceptable that's grand then? Are you serious? No really.

dotsman wrote:

Circumcision in the Koran (which has been one of the main drivers of the practice) is the removal of the prepuce from both the male and female. On males, the prepuce is the foreskin, on females it is the clitoral hood. In both cases, the purpose of the prepuce is to protect the glands and expose them during sex. The reason for cutting them off is to "cleanse" the victim and the resulting physical effects are the same (reduced sexual pleasure).

Female circumcision isn't in the Koran D. IIRC it's mentioned in the life of the prophet stuff where he doesnt say he's agin it, just dont do too much damage. It was common practice in that part of the world long before Islam. It was part of the Arab culture. It certainly went along for the ride with the spread of Islam, but its no way exclusive to that culture. It's just another way to control women's sexuality, common since we started farming and owned property as a species and making sure if you were a man your kids and inheritance were yours. Classical Islam is highly suspicious of women's sexuality hence it's not surprising it's known among some in that culture. Christianity was the same. Actually more confusing because they threw in the Madonna/whore thang for shíts and giggles.

Male circumcision is more about a primitive blood rite to the gods. Rather than sacrificing people as part of a blood rite(like the aztecs, or the Phoenicians who sacrificed babies) they went with the foreskin. The original version in judaism isn't as invasive as a medical one funny enough. Just the tip. The more invasive one came later.

The American fetish for it is not unlike the female version in other cultures, in that originally it was considered a way to control "excessive urges" and to stop young boys masturbating excessively. Some doctors insisted that it be done with no pain relief in older boys to traumatise them into stopping. The victorians were obsessed with sex (and death. Freud ahoy! ) and considered that a man who was too sexual was weakening his vital forces. I shít thee not. Throw in Onan being cursed by god for spilling his seed... Do a bit of googling. Mad. Ads for cures for "male weakness from youthful excesses" and anti fapping devices. :eek: http://cdn.edu-search.com/uploads/icewaterbelt.jpg http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-therapy/201009/the-masturbation-gap

Women were also sometimes circumcised or even had medical cliterectomies for the same reason. "Hysteria"(from the greek for womb, hysterectomy etc) was often linked with "oversexed" women. Though in their case women were sometimes given forced orgasms as that was thought to relieve the buildup of womb pressure and the like...

So over time it became a medical fashion. Not just in the US. Most men in the english speaking world around 1900 would have been snipped. Then it went out of fashion in Ireland and the UK etc, only hanging on in the US. It was popular here in the 40's and 50's too. Like I say medical fashion with justifications thrown on after the fact. You see this fashion kinda thing in other areas. Few men of my age still have their tonsils. I don;t know one of my peers that does. Adenoid removal was another one. Nowadays it's rarer. In the US I suspect that it may also a money thing considering the costs of medical procedures over there. Basically routine childhood snippage is either primitive religious nonsense and/or medical fashion. Luckily Irish docs are agin it. More enlightened by far.

dpe

Wibbs wrote: »

Luckily Irish docs are agin it. More enlightened by far.

No, they prefer routine ceasarians for all instead. Its actually amazing how many people's lives are affected by changing medical fashions that have little or nothing to do with actual health needs.

Wibbs

True but its not all the docs fault either. Like with overuse of antibiotics. Parent goes to doc with snot nosed kid with minor virus and insists on antibionics. Happened a lot. I'd say at least some of the ceasarian stuff is patient driven.

sensibleken

Wibbs wrote: »

True but its not all the docs fault either. Like with overuse of antibiotics. Parent goes to doc with snot nosed kid with minor virus and insists on antibionics. Happened a lot. I'd say at least some of the ceasarian stuff is patient driven.

I think that is absolutely the fault of the doctor. In the case of anti biotics he should have the professional integrity to say 'no antibiotics only work for bacteria' instead of giving them medication that will do them no bit of good and potentially a lot of harm and making a few quid out of them.

Seachmall

Wibbs wrote: »

Riiight so long as a practice is socially acceptable that's grand then? Are you serious? No really.

As long as they have no negative effects be they medical or social.

Circumcision doesn't hence I'm fine with it.

Turpentine

sensibleken wrote: »

No, thats just called tongue splitting. Bi-furcation is splitting the glans in half. theres also sub-incission which is just splitting the length on the urethra underneath

Bifurcation means splitting something in two. I assumed bnt was talking about tongue-bifurcation because it's a common procedure among weirdos, no offence to weirdos out there.

I had never heard of penile bifurcation before. I now wish I hadn't. Thanks sensibleken.

sensibleken

Turpentine wrote: »

Bifurcation means splitting something in two. I assumed bnt was talking about tongue-bifurcation because it's a common procedure among weirdos, no offence to weirdos out there.

I had never heard of penile bifurcation before. I now wish I hadn't. Thanks sensibleken.

no offence taken

smash

Seachmall wrote: »

As long as they have no negative effects be they medical or social.

Circumcision doesn't hence I'm fine with it.

Medical: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72768630&postcount=88

Social: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72755198&postcount=59

sensibleken

steve06 wrote: »

Medical: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72768630&postcount=88

Social: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72755198&postcount=59

my example that you quoted is of kids making fun of another kid for being different in some way. if he had ginger pubes he would have gotten the same slagging

hatrickpatrick

Seachmall wrote: »

As long as they have no negative effects be they medical or social.

Circumcision doesn't hence I'm fine with it.

I'm a guy with a foreskin. I can 100% assure you that there is a LOT of feeling in that particular bit of skin. It's not just a random bit of skin.

I won't get into the gory mechanics of how it interacts with the penis to give you an orgasm, you can look that up yourself if you want.