Interesting website

After watching the episode of P&T BS on Circs I decided to do some research on the subject. I found this website and I found it very interesting and informative and have since been persuaded to indeed bring home my son (if the baby is a boy) 100% totally intact. http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/

Edited July 7, 2008 by Morgause

http://i27.tinypic.com/zsu13p.jpg

Mind the recent study in Africa which showed a highly disproportionate rate of HIV infection of uncircumcised men vs circumcised. No, I don't think it's really a litmus test, but it's something to consider that the STD infection rate may be different amongst the two categories.

 

The site you referenced is perilously out of date for a medically related subject.

It's also hard to clean I hear.

I hear infection is a risk for not snipping. But ultimately up to the parents (At least until the kid grows up and if he wants to do it later in life it will hurt a lot more ^_^)

It's SOOOO hard to clean. And really painful if he decides to do it later.

I think you can generally say 'trimmed' is the best way to go for this area.

 

Wait, penis skin? What?... Thats right. Trimmed.

Ever wonder why a condom is ribbed for her pleasure? The rib actually simulates what the foreskin would do naturally. As far as the rate of HIV in Africa I hardly think Africa is the best place to do a case study, that country is serioulsy like what 85% infected now? There have been studies done on both accounts and neither has been conclusive. "Circumcision shows a protective effect against HIV infection." (New England Journal of Medicine 1997) "Recommending routine circumcision to prevent HIV and AIDS infections is scientifically unfounded." (International Journal of STDs and AIDS 1999) Not to mention as far as STDs go I'd hope that snipped or not snipped my son would use protection, which as most people will tell you is the best way for sexually active males to protect themselves against STDS intact or not. The majority of uncirced men I've talked to say it's not harder to clean, it just takes a lil extra time and honestly how hard do you think it will be get to a boy to dedicate some time to his penis in the shower? I've just began to feel that for the most part it's nothing more than a cosmetic procedure and yes I don't have a penis but I'd be pissed off to learn at a later age that my parents had snipped off 10% of my sexual sensitivity. That's just one website there are a lot. I just thought it was interesting that in America we're told the procedure is a necessity and it's really not. I guess in the end it's up to the parents. thank god female circumcision isn't an elective procedure parents can perform here in America.

 

http://www.nocirc.org/

 

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/links.html

 

Here's a link to some videos:

 

Part 1:

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3etJ8V3C-po

 

Part 2:

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=M2-Nq-w2BTY&feature=related

 

Part 3:

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CzE0zGPNok8&feature=related

 

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lmK5k5qlwxI&feature=related

Edited July 7, 2008 by Morgause

im at work. are these links to someone...being...circumcised? mind you i just ate tuna for lunch.

Unfortunately the only people who have a valid opinion are the ones that have experienced life both ways...that means being circumcized later in life. Anyone else is just talking out of their ass. Sorry...but a man who is "intact" has no basis for opinion on what life would be like being snipped and vice versa.

 

My dad was "au natural" until he was in his 30's when my mom made him do it after they got married. He said it wasn't much different and he sure doesn't miss it.

 

Besides...uncircimcuzed penises look creepy. I don't wear turtle necks on my neck...much less on my boy.

Besides...uncircimcuzed penises look creepy. I don't wear turtle necks on my neck...much less on my boy.

 

 

I lol'd and its totally true. Chick do not dig the east coast hooded python. /votes foreskin off the island.

Circumcision isn't going to protect anyone from any disease, So I've got no idea where HIV comes into play.

 

You're pissed about losing 10% of your sexual sensitivity b/c you're a woman, for most men it's something that is useful. Unless you like guys like Shad that are good for 10min or less....

 

And besides the medical argument, consider the social one. Do you want your boy to be the only kid in Gym class sporting the trurtle neck?

 

Pro-circumcision review: No gain or loss from HIV protection, Increased stamina in bed, and social acceptance by his peers.

 

Kind of sells it self...

Here's a little food for thought

1)Docking - The act of placing the head of ones penis inside the foreskin of another's penis.

 

That sounds painful...

This thread is going places...I'm just not sure I like it.

GG do you really want your son to be a "Docker"

Shiki has the best argument

I'm not really concerned about him looking different in gym class. I mean if that's my main concern than it falls back to this procedure being cosmetic and I'm not a fan of having cosmetic surgery performed on my newborn who has no say so in the matter. It just seems so shallow to put a newborn through a surgery just to make him look the way we as Americans have been told look normal. To me it would be equal to if I had a child born with a large nose or a daughter with small boob (sadly for my daughter I'm not sure a small chest is an option) would I have my child rushed to the plastic surgeon so they could conform to some standard of beauty. I guess for me it's become a personal choice that I'd prefer to leave up to my son when he is at a ge to make an informed choice for himself. Which btw we don't even know if it's boy yet so all of this is just planning ahead in the event we see a penis in our ultrasound. Lysaa you're right. I don't have a penis and therefore know nothing about what it's like to either have or have not on the foreskin issue. I have however been with both circed and uncirced men and in general I found that an uncirced penis was much more pleasureable to be with. Ecth, being circumcisied does not equal more stamina in bed. In fact the foreskin acts as a receptor and alerts the male to him being close to orgasm faster so he has more control over his orgasm. I'm also very curious as to how we can legitimise male circumcision when female cirumcision has been deemed a total human rights violation. The clit is much like the foreskin in that many see it only for sexual pleasure. Unlike the clit though the foreskin actually serves a purpose other than sexual function. When a baby boy is born his penis is an internal organ, protecting the glans and the head of the penis, which is not covered by skin but instead covered by a very thin mucous membrane. The risk of urinary tract infection in intact boys is alleged to be 1/100. How can anyone suggest that 100 boys have their normal foreskins removed to possibly prevent one UTI, easily and correctly treated with antibiotics? Females have the higest rate of UTIs no matter what. I have to say this thread became very interesting and it's nice to hear what others think/feel about the issue. I was the same way thinking the foreskin had no purpose and it meant a healthier penis etc. It's just amazing the bullshit we've been spoon fed.

 

 

Oh and Tom and Jon, if my son decides to be a "docker" I'll love him anyway. =p Gabe is already teasing me because I've said I hope whatever we have, boy or girl, the baby is involved in theatre and dance. His response "So you don't care if we have a boy or a girl as long as they grow up to have sex with men." Luckily he's cool with the baby taking dance and acting lessons as long as I'm cool with him teaching the baby mma, which he fell in love with while in the military.

 

 

 

 

http://www.enotalone.com/article/3513.html

 

This site has penis pics so NSFW:

 

http://www.forplu.com/community/guys-like-us/foreskin.htm

 

This website addresses the studies conducted about HIV etc:

 

http://www.cirp.org/news/sydneymorningherald11-06-03/

 

Interesting study done. Sexually active females who have expereinced sex with both and detailed why they prefered one or the other:

 

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/

 

Talks about the "health benefits" and the purpose of foreskin:

 

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org...o/foreskin.html

Edited July 7, 2008 by Morgause

Oh lord epic thread is epic.

Circumcising African men may cut their risk of catching AIDS in half, the National Institutes of Health said today as it stopped two clinical trials in Africa, when preliminary results suggested that circumcision worked so well that it would be unethical not to offer it to uncircumcised men in the trials.

From New York Times, Dec '06

 

Two decades of research show women are less likely to contract a variety of sexually transmitted infections when their male partners are circumcised.

 

From In These Times

 

Science Daily, though, purports that it's not circumcision that affects HIV infection rates, but rather the prevalence of prostitution.

 

 

So the conclusion is this: talk to your doctor, perhaps specifically a urologist, because no one here knows what they hell they are really talking about.

 

And as for the female vs. male circumcision topic, the female form is more akin to mutilation than anything. Male circumcision was likely 'invented' because of hygenic reasons (also, bannination of pork and shellfish), whereas female "circumcision" is designed specifically to deprive a female of sexual pleasure. Physiologically, it'd be akin to removing a male's glans.

Circumcision was first a religous rite of passage from the Jews and then became popular in America with the Christians as a way to stop little boys from masterbating. Very true story. Eff that corn flake guy in the A. It was not 'invented' for hygenic purposes. It was first a sacrament to God by the Jews and then a means to control impure thoughts and behaviors amongst Christians. As far as STDs go I still stand by the fact that Africa is a horrible place to do any sort of case study for something like this. How many of those men being studied actually have access to condoms? No amount of surgery can negate the necessisity of safe sex.

 

Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, a well-known fundamentalist health reformer and medical journalist (his 1888 "Plain Facts for Old and Young" included roughly 100 pages dedicated to "Secret Vice [solitary or Self Abuse]") who went on to create the world's preeminent corn flake, was more direct in his approach. "A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision," he wrote. "The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment. In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement."

 

"Only Jews and Arabs practice routine circumcision in Europe -- in fact, the United States is the only country in the industrialized world to practice it across the board....Why is the most "advanced" nation in the industrialized world alone in practicing a disturbing archaism from less enlightened times? In "The Saharasian Connection," Dr. James DeMeo, who calls circumcision "an ancient blood ritual ... that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with medicine, health, or science in practically all cases," puts forth this hypothesis: "The fact that so many circumcised American men, and mothers, nurses, and obstetricians are ready to defend the practice in the face of contrary epidemiological evidence is a certain giveaway to hidden, unconscious motives and disturbed emotional feelings about the penis and sexual matters in general."

 

Circumcision and it's histroy in America:

 

http://www.noharmm.org/circamerica.htm

if you're trying to discourage the forum users...I would say it's a bit late.

 

Otherwise, I would really think you should talk with your doctor and I don't mean the MDs and PhDs in bullshit that we have on the web.

I believe it was first a religious rite because it was a hygiene issue. What better way to make your tribe healthier than to tell them to cut off the top of their hoo-hoo-dillys? Unless one believes that god truly did speak with Abraham and command him to circumsize himself and his tribe, then their has to be a reasonable beginning to the practice. I parenthetically mentioned the pork and shellfish because those, like most kosher regulations, were just hygenic purposes slipped into holy text.

Indeed I have talked with my obgyn and I'm very lucky to have found a doctor who agrees that there is nothing wrong with leaving a male exactly the way he was born into this world. Anyway off to work. Have a super fantastic day all.

And as an aside, I personally wouldn't have my sons circumsized, because I don't believe that there is any true benefit nowadays. Even the things that could be argued for are more parenting skills than anything. Cleaning? Parenting. Safe sex? Parenting. Self-esteem? Parenting.