Circumcision???

amacachi

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Is it true the sometimes eat the bit that's cut off or something:eek::eek:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregion/26circumcise.html?pagewanted=print

Raging_Ninja

itrs like them new age hippy peoples (or whatever) eating the placenta after birth.

Doc Ruby

krudler wrote: »

you're basically saying all circumcised men have crap sex lives, I say bullsh1t.

I and those linked reports hold that they have crappier sex lives on average than uncircumcised men along with a host of other problems. You can argue with them if you like.

My name is URL wrote: »

I don't know how anyone can say that circumcising infants for reasons other than medical ones; is acceptable.

There's a real problem with ignorance among doctors and parents in many places about the proper treatment of a child's foreskin though. Its not supposed to retract, sometimes up to adolescence. I wouldn't doubt a lot of people have been misdiagnosed, but by the time they are old enough to realise and do something about it its far too late to tell for sure.

dark crystal

krudler wrote: »

I do, its never been an issue with either lack of sensitivity or the reverse, or with the girl having issues, now granted not all women can climax through penetration but the ones I've been with who can have never had an issue with it. you're basically saying all circumcised men have crap sex lives, I say bullsh1t.

My fella had it done for medical reasons when he was 20 and I can't say I've noticed any difference between sex with him or other guys who were uncircumcised, tbh. It's all good!

Saying that, I would be against circumcision for baby boys as a standard procedure. Except for medical reasons, I don't see why there's any need to have it removed at all. Surely the foreskin is there for a some biological reason??

gizmo555

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's a barbaric practice when carried out on defenceless babies. It causes unnecessary pain and suffering up to and including death.

It resulted in the death of Waterford infant boy Callis Osaghae as recently as 2003:

THE simple inscription “We Will Speak Your Name” the Angels plot at St. Otteran’s Cemetery, Ballinaneeshagh, encapsulates the debate which is set continue for some time to come on the various issues surrounding the death of baby Callis Osaghae following a botched circumcision at his city home.

The 29-day old baby, son of Idehen (31) and Mabel (23), was pronounced dead at Waterford Regional Hospital at 5.50 a.m. on Monday morning August 18 [2003]. A couple of hours earlier he was rushed the hospital bleeding profusely following the operation which went horribly wrong.

As the hunt continues for the man for a man who thought to have carried out the failed operation, having being contacted through a mobile telephone number by Mrs. Osaghae, it remains uncertain if home-style operations would cease…even if facilities for such operations were to be provided at Waterford Regional Hospital.

The Osaghae family who have two daughters, are thought to have paid an undisclosed sum of money for the operation on their 30-day old son. Supt. Michael McGarry, of Waterford Garda Station, said yesterday that the investigation was ongoing and they were interested in talking to anyone who might be of assistance to them with regard to the events at Summerhill Mews, on Sunday evening, August 17.

It was, he added, going to be a painstaking investigation which would involve the trawling through of files and an examination of a number of cases where people had carried out circumcisions in other parts of the country.

“We are looking at facets of this case and we are not ruling out the fact that the circumcision may have been carried out by a Nigerian,” stated Supt. McGarry.

Raging_Ninja

gizmo555 wrote: »

It resulted in the death of Waterford infant boy Callis Osaghae as recently as 2003:

THE simple inscription “We Will Speak Your Name” the Angels plot at St. Otteran’s Cemetery, Ballinaneeshagh, encapsulates the debate which is set continue for some time to come on the various issues surrounding the death of baby Callis Osaghae following a botched circumcision at his city home.

The 29-day old baby, son of Idehen (31) and Mabel (23), was pronounced dead at Waterford Regional Hospital at 5.50 a.m. on Monday morning August 18 [2003]. A couple of hours earlier he was rushed the hospital bleeding profusely following the operation which went horribly wrong.

As the hunt continues for the man for a man who thought to have carried out the failed operation, having being contacted through a mobile telephone number by Mrs. Osaghae, it remains uncertain if home-style operations would cease…even if facilities for such operations were to be provided at Waterford Regional Hospital.

The Osaghae family who have two daughters, are thought to have paid an undisclosed sum of money for the operation on their 30-day old son. Supt. Michael McGarry, of Waterford Garda Station, said yesterday that the investigation was ongoing and they were interested in talking to anyone who might be of assistance to them with regard to the events at Summerhill Mews, on Sunday evening, August 17.

It was, he added, going to be a painstaking investigation which would involve the trawling through of files and an examination of a number of cases where people had carried out circumcisions in other parts of the country.

“We are looking at facets of this case and we are not ruling out the fact that the circumcision may have been carried out by a Nigerian,” stated Supt. McGarry.

In all fairness that was not carried out by proper medical staff - it was a DIY job.

amacachi

Doc Ruby wrote: »

There's a real problem with ignorance among doctors and parents in many places about the proper treatment of a child's foreskin though. Its not supposed to retract, sometimes up to adolescence. I wouldn't doubt a lot of people have been misdiagnosed, but by the time they are old enough to realise and do something about it its far too late to tell for sure.

The money thing is a bigger factor IMO. When treating more people leads to bigger profits/wages they'll do all kinds of crap for the sake of it. I had something wrong with me a coupla years back and took the treatment option with the least hassle. Looked it up online and there's three different mainstream treatments, each with roughly the same success rate. In America the one that takes the most time, effort and disruption to the patient is the most used. Surprise surprise.

Doc Ruby

amacachi wrote: »

The money thing is a bigger factor IMO. When treating more people leads to bigger profits/wages they'll do all kinds of crap for the sake of it. I had something wrong with me a coupla years back and took the treatment option with the least hassle. Looked it up online and there's three different mainstream treatments, each with roughly the same success rate. In America the one that takes the most time, effort and disruption to the patient is the most used. Surprise surprise.

Primum non nocere pretty much flies out the window with some of these lads alright.

chirogirl

A guy I dated last year had the chop, due to medical reasons. Post-op it took ages to heal, plus 1 stitch wouldn't loosen up, and he complained that it became de-sensitised.

gizmo555

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

In all fairness that was not carried out by proper medical staff - it was a DIY job.

A great many circumcisions are carried out by non-medical personnel, as this one was. The man who did the circumcision in this case was said to be experienced at the job. (And, by the way, he was charged with reckless endangerment of the baby, but was acquitted, so you have to assume that having heard all the evidence the jury in the case accepted that he knew what he was doing.) Even where circumcision is done by doctors, while it's less risky, it's absolutely not risk free.

IMO, there is no justification for subjecting infant children to that risk unless there is a specific medical condition for which circumcision is required. Religion or tradition are no justifications at all.

Spoonman75

Like most men here, I voted against it. Having said that, if it's for medical reasons and it's the only option to relieve discomfort, then there isin't much of a choice, is there?

I know for a fact that it was much more acceptable in Irish hospitals in the mid 1970's. I suffered from a hernia when I was 6 weeks old. I was also circumcised during the same procedure to correct this. This was done without the consent of my parents. The surgeons excuse to my mother at the time was, "Well I was in the general area, so I performed one".

I'm not sure that would happen in a modern Irish hospital.

Or would it?

Wibbs

I doubt it, though it does seem that Irish docs are pretty quick in going for the snip before trying other routes to help problems in that area. Nearly happened to a mate of mine. He had some issue. He didn't give many details as men tend not to . He went to three doctors. Te first two were all for the snip as soon as possible. He did research which suggested otherwise and after a further two doctors the last doctor, a woman funny enough* performed a much less intrusive procedure and he was fine. This was a few years back, but judging by the snip thread in tGC it seems there does seem to be "do the snip" as first principle.





*I say funny enough not because of her expertise or anything, but funny because she was much more open to less invasive stuff and she doesn't possess a willy.

Sierra 117

I'm against circumcision being performed on children unless it's medically necessary. Parents shouldn't have the power to have their children circumcised.

If men want to get circumcised for cosmetic reasons then that's their choice.

44leto

Spoonman75 wrote: »

Like most men here, I voted against it. Having said that, if it's for medical reasons and it's the only option to relieve discomfort, then there isin't much of a choice, is there?

I know for a fact that it was much more acceptable in Irish hospitals in the mid 1970's. I suffered from a hernia when I was 6 weeks old. I was also circumcised during the same procedure to correct this. This was done without the consent of my parents. The surgeons excuse to my mother at the time was, "Well I was in the general area, so I performed one".

I'm not sure that would happen in a modern Irish hospital.

Or would it?

At the time from the early 50s to the early 70s it was routinely done in the States from 50 to 90% of that generation were circumcised. It was thought to be beneficial. Then that fell out of practice in the 70s when anti "male mutilation groups start to protest" a movement which had its strongest proponents in the American gay community.

There is scant evidence that it protects against HIV and other venereal diseases but that is still controversial. I was done in infancy but no-one else in my family was.

saa

Over here people don't usually get circumcised unless there is a medical reason why else would you? (American context below)

I am not against circumcision with consent from someone making a decision about their body without being told by their parents if they should get it done or without understanding why they would.

There are religious reasons, I still wish they would value the consent from the individual.
(Yes they would remember the pain but if there was a good enough reason they would get over it)

Other than that if this was an American forum circumcision would usually be seen as something parents would do for their children for hygiene, even though the foreskin doesn't retract until an age where the child can learn how to wash themselves, miniscule unfounded evidence against viral protection does not warrant a surgical procedure.
Most of all it is a cosmetic thing the foreskin is seen as a deformation like an extra flap of skin that is sweaty smelly and "gross", children get bullied in the changing rooms about being uncircumcised and parents say that they want their son to look more like their farther. But it doesn't just stop in school many American women refuse to date a man with a slug down there or a mickey that looks like a rolled up pop sock.

Bizarre!

44leto

saa wrote: »

Other than that if this was an American forum circumcision would usually be seen as something parents would do for their children for hygiene, even though the foreskin doesn't retract until an age where the child can learn how to wash themselves, miniscule unfounded evidence against viral protection does not warrant a surgical procedure.
Most of all it is a cosmetic thing the foreskin is seen as a deformation like an extra flap of skin that is sweaty smelly and "gross", children get bullied in the changing rooms about being uncircumcised and parents say that they want their son to look more like their farther. But it doesn't just stop in school many American women refuse to date a man with a slug down there or a mickey that looks like a rolled up pop sock.

Bizarre!

I agree with those women Anyhoo where this forum.

amacachi

Wibbs wrote: »

I doubt it, though it does seem that Irish docs are pretty quick in going for the snip before trying other routes to help problems in that area. Nearly happened to a mate of mine. He had some issue. He didn't give many details as men tend not to . He went to three doctors. Te first two were all for the snip as soon as possible. He did research which suggested otherwise and after a further two doctors the last doctor, a woman funny enough* performed a much less intrusive procedure and he was fine. This was a few years back, but judging by the snip thread in tGC it seems there does seem to be "do the snip" as first principle.

Isn't there a "partial circumcision" that just involves a cut rather than removing anything?

Doc Ruby

saa wrote: »

But it doesn't just stop in school many American women refuse to date a man with a slug down there or a mickey that looks like a rolled up pop sock.

Just goes to show large numbers of otherwise educated people can be extremely stupid.

Wibbs

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Just goes to show large numbers of otherwise educated people can be extremely stupid.

And they'd be the first to be up in arms if it was suggested that newborn girls should have their labia surgically tidied up. Indeed while female genital mutilation is far more severe in most cases, the reasons given are remarkably similar to circumcision. "It's tradition/religious. It's cleaner. Men will find a non circumcised woman ugly/disgusting. Her mother and her mother before her had it done" etc. Yet the same people who would rightfully rail against FGM, will have zero issue with routine male circumcision because it's OK in their culture.

Spoonman75

saa wrote: »

Over here people don't usually get circumcised unless there is a medical reason why else would you? (American context below)

I am not against circumcision with consent from someone making a decision about their body without being told by their parents if they should get it done or without understanding why they would.

There are religious reasons, I still wish they would value the consent from the individual.
(Yes they would remember the pain but if there was a good enough reason they would get over it)

Other than that if this was an American forum circumcision would usually be seen as something parents would do for their children for hygiene, even though the foreskin doesn't retract until an age where the child can learn how to wash themselves, miniscule unfounded evidence against viral protection does not warrant a surgical procedure.
Most of all it is a cosmetic thing the foreskin is seen as a deformation like an extra flap of skin that is sweaty smelly and "gross", children get bullied in the changing rooms about being uncircumcised and parents say that they want their son to look more like their farther. But it doesn't just stop in school many American women refuse to date a man with a slug down there or a mickey that looks like a rolled up pop sock.

Bizarre!

As someone on this thread already mentioned, the foreskin has several useful purposes in the human male. We've evolved this for a very good reason. How on Earth could some one come to the conclusion that it's "a deformation"? We're all born this way!

DazMarz

If there is a very good medical reason for it, then of course... but otherwise, leave it alone.

I'm a male, uncircumcised and I'm very happy.

To circumcise for any other reason than a medical problem is nothing short of lunacy in my opinion.

Wibbs

amacachi wrote: »

Isn't there a "partial circumcision" that just involves a cut rather than removing anything?

I think so. I think the guy I knew just had a tight banjo string and that got relieved. The part I don't get is if it's tight why can't it be stretched(in the absence of heavy scar tissue like in diabetes etc)? I mean go to the body modification forum hereabouts and you'll find chaps and chappesses with stretched earlobes and the like. Some people really run with that. IIRC with some cosmetic surgical procedures in order to get more skin to graft surgeons can stick a "balloon" under healthy skin to make it grow. Given how stretchy the foreskin is in the first place you'd imagine that option is there with a tight foreskin, which would otherwise require the removal of the forsekin for medical reasons? Could one not design a balloon type device that would over time force new skin cells to grow the foreskin to the point where it is normalised(albeit a slow process)? Genuine question BTW if there are any docs reading.

My name is URL

amacachi wrote: »

Isn't there a "partial circumcision" that just involves a cut rather than removing anything?

Well for cases of phimosis there's an alternative procedure called a preputioplasty. A mate of mine had it done in London. After a bit of searching none of the clinics that carry out circumcisions here advertise the alternative procedure.

amacachi

Wibbs wrote: »

I think so. I think the guy I knew just had a tight banjo string and that got relieved. The part I don't get is if it's tight why can't it be stretched(in the absence of heavy scar tissue like in diabetes etc)? I mean go to the body modification forum hereabouts and you'll find chaps and chappesses with stretched earlobes and the like. Some people really run with that. IIRC with some cosmetic surgical procedures in order to get more skin to graft surgeons can stick a "balloon" under healthy skin to make it grow. Given how stretchy the foreskin is in the first place you'd imagine that option is there with a tight foreskin, which would otherwise require the removal of the forsekin for medical reasons? Could one not design a balloon type device that would over time force new skin cells to grow the foreskin to the point where it is normalised(albeit a slow process)? Genuine question BTW if there are any docs reading.

I've not got a huge amount of expertise in this but if a foreskin is too tight or a little malformed then I'd imagine the sinle snip could work. I know a cousin of mine had to get something done when he was about 4, the doctor told his parents to soak the bits in a saltwater-type solution a few times for a while to see if it helped, it didn't, then for some reason moved straight on to full circumcision rather than just a nick.
Seems there might be a few different issues that can arise. "Tightness" could mean different things to different people I suppose.

ROFLcopter

I'm against it, unless it's for medical reasons. I like to ride my motorbike naked with my foreskin flapping in the wind.

saa

Spoonman75 wrote: »

As someone on this thread already mentioned, the foreskin has several useful purposes in the human male. We've evolved this for a very good reason. How on Earth could some one come to the conclusion that it's "a deformation"? We're all born this way!

No no let me make this clear that is what I have heard from the argument for circumcision at birth.

I was even asked by a circumcised male why wouldn't I circumcise my son? my response was Why would I? its a surgical procedure
and he responded no it isnt, if you don't get it done your child will most likely have lots of problems with his foreskin, and that is why he would not listen to any benefits of the foreskin because he believed they caused infection and pain in most cases and that if you don't get it done eventually you'll "have" to get it done later in life because of all the trouble and discomfort caused by the foreskin, what the hell, and why would he want urine in his foreskin. I told him that I didn't know of any males bar one who had any issues with his foreskin it is uncommon and his response was yeah well its true, this is coming from a 31 year old male.

It is so twisted what some people are led to believe.

Paddy Cow

amacachi wrote: »

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregion/26circumcise.html?pagewanted=print

That is very disturbing :eek:

Spoonman75

saa wrote: »

Over here people don't usually get circumcised unless there is a medical reason why else would you? (American context below)

I am not against circumcision with consent from someone making a decision about their body without being told by their parents if they should get it done or without understanding why they would.

There are religious reasons, I still wish they would value the consent from the individual.
(Yes they would remember the pain but if there was a good enough reason they would get over it)

Other than that if this was an American forum circumcision would usually be seen as something parents would do for their children for hygiene, even though the foreskin doesn't retract until an age where the child can learn how to wash themselves, miniscule unfounded evidence against viral protection does not warrant a surgical procedure.
Most of all it is a cosmetic thing the foreskin is seen as a deformation like an extra flap of skin that is sweaty smelly and "gross", children get bullied in the changing rooms about being uncircumcised and parents say that they want their son to look more like their farther. But it doesn't just stop in school many American women refuse to date a man with a slug down there or a mickey that looks like a rolled up pop sock.

Bizarre!

saa wrote: »

No no let me make this clear that is what I have heard from the argument for circumcision at birth.

I was even asked by a circumcised male why wouldn't I circumcise my son? my response was Why would I? its a surgical procedure
and he responded no it isnt, if you don't get it done your child will most likely have lots of problems with his foreskin, and that is why he would not listen to any benefits of the foreskin because he believed they caused infection and pain in most cases and that if you don't get it done eventually you'll "have" to get it done later in life because of all the trouble and discomfort caused by the foreskin, what the hell, and why would he want urine in his foreskin. I told him that I didn't know of any males bar one who had any issues with his foreskin it is uncommon and his response was yeah well its true, this is coming from a 31 year old male.

It is so twisted what some people are led to believe.

It's cool, Saa. I understand you don't accept these views and realise you're giving other people's responses:D
You've answered my question as to why people say these things and it's down to ignorant or "twisted" beliefs.
Basic human Biology should be taught to everyone at school. Along with Chemistry and Physics, but that's a whole 'nother thread!
As far as the "sweaty, smelly gross" opinion, well I'd hope basic hygiene rules would apply. I mean, you're taught at an early age to wash your hands. Surely that would apply to the rest of the body but I grew up without a foreskin. What would I know!

kylith

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

A mate of mine got it done in his 20's because he kept ripping his banjo string. A few years on he can thump it off a hard surface and barely feel a thing, he says he'd have it back on in a flash.

Wibbs wrote: »

I think so. I think the guy I knew just had a tight banjo string and that got relieved. The part I don't get is if it's tight why can't it be stretched(in the absence of heavy scar tissue like in diabetes etc)? I mean go to the body modification forum hereabouts and you'll find chaps and chappesses with stretched earlobes and the like. Some people really run with that. IIRC with some cosmetic surgical procedures in order to get more skin to graft surgeons can stick a "balloon" under healthy skin to make it grow. Given how stretchy the foreskin is in the first place you'd imagine that option is there with a tight foreskin, which would otherwise require the removal of the forsekin for medical reasons? Could one not design a balloon type device that would over time force new skin cells to grow the foreskin to the point where it is normalised(albeit a slow process)? Genuine question BTW if there are any docs reading.

It can be grown back, or made less tight, by stretching it. It takes longer than surgery, but the effect is, IMO, preferable and has fewer risks.

As a woman with experience of both I prefer uncut men. I wouldn't turn down a guy because he's cut, but the skin on circumcised penises doesn't perform in a way I'd consider 'normal'.

Micky Dolenz

kylith wrote: »

It can be grown back, or made less tight, by stretching it. It takes longer than surgery, but the effect is, IMO, preferable and has fewer risks.

l'.

I'm pretty sure he had tired everything as he wasn't too keen on getting it done. He and his doctors felt it was the only thing for him. Poor sod.