Showtime! Here comes a fresh raft of neurotic men, weenie-obsessives who'll rally 'round Amy as their champion! Watch this comment space later today: They're due any moment. Once they figure out that we discuss other topics as well, they'll leave.

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. -- Winston Churchill

> it has not shown to help those
> with the greatest risk, men
> having sex with men.

Are those the only ones to be concerned with? If you could reduce the incidence of breast cancer in the 95% of women least likely to get it, would you want to do it?

If you could reduce the incidence of breast cancer in the 95% of women least likely to get it, would you want to do it?

Sure! If I could wear a latex baggie around each breast while having sex to avoid breast cancer like men can do with their penises to avoid HIV, I'd do it in a second! I wouldn't, however, have my boobs hacked off when the latex bag solution is an option.

Well crid a simple solution exists to wipe out most breast cancer forever and they dont use it.

And on this suject I would say you are the fanatic, afterall you wont look at any info from the anti circumcision side of the arguement so its impossible to change your mind. And no matter where these conversations meander you always fall back on your same argument, in effect never changing the subject of the disscusion.

Forced medical procedures of any kind seem a little, I dunno, unethical? Maybe a little bit of a violation? Maybe I'm just being sensitive, though.

When can we start making analogies to female genital mutilation, which forces female babies' clits to be cut off and their labia sewn together with just a little hole to pee/menstruate? In this case it is a way to lessen pleasure and promote sexual repression among women. Pretty barbaric either way.

An interesting addendum to this issue, on August 27th 2009, The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) released a [much anticipated] briefing paper outlining their position on routine neonatal circumcision. Read all about it here.

The bottom line? Routine infant circumcision is not supported, there are no good reasons to perform it.

In this case it is a way to lessen pleasure and promote sexual repression among women
-Gretchen

That was the root force driving early male circumcison proponets as well.

The health benifits are negligable, I posted a link to a study that said hunndreds of circumscisions would be nessacary to prevent on case of HIV, and given nearly every single circumscion is botched in one way or another the cost benifit analysis falls squarley on the con side

There are many good reasons to circumcise infants. Hygiene plays a major role. The uncircumcised penis has a fold of skin over the head called a prepuce. Nasty things occur under the prepuce such as accumulation of dirt, urine and the build up of smegma. If not cleaned, infections occur. Cleaning an uncircumcised penis is difficult for an infant ( daily pulling back the prepuce and cleaning the head); and not done well, if at all, by an adolescent. Penile hygiene must continue for all one's adult life and, if not done well, leads to more infections and foul odor. Imagine the accumulation of bacteria under the prepuce right after sex where the man rolls over and goes to sleep instead of washing right away.

So why circumcise the infant w/o his consent?
Hygiene is much easier. To clean, one must specifically pull back the prepuce and clean the head. The circumcised penis needs only a quick swab with a soapy wash cloth. Plus, the infant has no memory of the pain, and infants heal quickly.

Psychological reasons: to conform which is important for ages 5 - 18.Small boy...to look like daddy; adolescent...to look like other boys.

I forgot, lu is one of the neurotics.

> If I could wear a latex baggie

Anything but take the point.

Wiping their own ass is hard for an infant too Nick, yet in the world you live in the apparently manage to do it all on their own

Nick, that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Intact boys are not unhygienic. In infancy, and often until puberty, the foreskin is fused to the head of the penis like your finger nail is fused to your finger. It is practically impossible, and very painful, if you attempt to pull back a boys foreskin. The kind of care you suggest will lead to significant scaring and infection. The proper care (the care you seem to think it too much to handle) is to essentially leave it be. Wipe it like a finger in the bath or when changing diapers. That's it.

If when the boy becomes an adult, the retract, wipe, replace presents too much of a challenge for them (as it seems to be the case for you) they are free to cut off the foreskin and any other body part they aren't intent on maintaining.

Is no memory of an event your standard for ethics? I might warn potential dates of that character trait. And how many penis comparing sessions did you have with your father?

http://www.circinfo.net/penile_hygiene.htmlhttp://www.circinfo.net/penile_hygiene.html

Got my info here.

Oh no, not another circ debate. I suggest someone (was it you, Lujlp?) post the link to the photos of all the grown male's mutilated penises resulting from circumscision. That pretty much ended the debate for me, so it will save us a lot of time and put this to rest quickly.

You mean Brian Morris' circumcision fetish site? Nick, I got my info from the Royal Australasian College of Physicians site.

No, it wasn't a fetish site. Photos of men revealing the scars an deformities of their infant circumcisions. I wish I'd saved it.

I believe there are many sound reasons for performing male circumcision, but after seeing that I became torn. It's only worth it if the outcome can be guaranteed not to be a mutilation. If that many doctors are truly inept, causing those kinds of deformities, then it's a bigger risk than most parents know.

I am sorry for the confusion lovelysoul I wasn't talking about the site you mentioned, I was talking about Nick's site. I might know which site you're talking about.

The argument on if it's good or not is moot to the actual question. Which is do we want the GEVENMENT to mandate. The answer is keep your damndirtyhands off my privates. But in classic prisoner fashion, each little decision looks right in itself, but take you a bad place. IF, the government mandates healthcare that it provides, and IF it decides that HIV is enough of a threat, then it WILL mandate in some way that circs are done routinely. The cost/benefit analysis is pretty straight forward, but it tramples all over individuals.

What is interesting to me, is that the govermnet ISN'T demanding everyone get a flu shot, even though it is proven that it kills 50k people a year normally. what it will do when h1n1 actually gets rolling is anyone's guess. In this it seems that the CDC is picking the worng horse to bet on to actually win.

Amy, What the hell is wrong with you???
How dare you submit a post to your blog without obtaining the proper CSA??? (Crid Seal of Approval)
Get with it Missy!!!
We're all very busy and don't appreciate your lack of respect for our well being. A post not approved by Crid is a waste of all our time.
Please, I beg you, in the future obtain the proper CSA before posting.
Note that posts likely to be rejected by Crid are those that remind him of his inadequate Penis.
So keep that in mind.

I'm sort of with SwissArmy although forced vaccinations is an issue of mine. My children had to get chicken pox vaccs or they would not be allowed in school. Chicken Pox is most dangerous in adults and not one pediatrician could tell me that the vaccination would not wear off and make my kids susceptible as adults.
If there is going to be any government forced medical procedure, my vote goes to forced birth control for anyone on welfare, forced sterilization for the men that have 17 kids with 12 different women...well, you kind of get where I'm going with this.

Kristen, maybe Amy's epedimiologist friend can confirm, but my understanding is that ALL vaccines need a booster from time to time. That's why there are often measles outbreaks in adult pops. where they had been immunized...

CDC once did very important work which made major contributions to public health. I'm sure there are still some researchers there doing good stuff, but the organization now comes across mostly as a part of the Great National Scolding and Condemnation Agency.

Imagine people making the above arguments when considering whether to slice infant female genitals. Now imagine the incandescent fury of feminists and their political allies.

The doctors brandish the knives would be in physical danger, I suspect.

"There are many good reasons to circumcise infants. Hygiene plays a major role."

While we're at it, we should start chopping off the ends of everyone's fingers. Have you seen how disgusting some people's fingernails get?

Of course, if you want a non-surgical solution, you could just try cleaning once in a while.

My 10 year old son is uncut. He has had zero problems to date and there's been no elaborate cleaning process. The only thing he's ever asked in terms of comparison is about size...as in when does it grow to adult size?

My only concern is early sex and young women not knowing how to handle it. I had an uncut boyfriend way back and it took a bit of learning to make sure I didn't hurt him during a hand job. Of course, you have to learn that with a circ'd penis too.

Nick...what exactly do you think is in a women's vagina that's so dangerous? What about when I just roll over and go to sleep without cleaning out all that icky cum? It's a wonder I'm still alive! /sarc!

It used to be that kids routinely had their tonsils cut out -- at the risk of general anesthesia and complications -- because there was evidence that the surgery reduced the incidence of tonsilitis. This is no longer done, and surgery is approached on a case-by-case basis.

Same with circumcision. It gained ground among non-Jews in the U.S. to reduce penile sensitivity which supposedly would lead to less that that horror, masturbation.

It is simply a denial of a boy's right to bodily integrity (ever hear, "my body, my choice") to cut off a sexually-sensitive part of his anatomy which, when kept clean, provides protection to the penis.

It a grown man wants the procedure after informed consent, more power to him. Leave the babies alone.

Joe,

"How many penis comparing sessions did you have with your father ?"

I do not remember. However, all males have to learn to urinate ( standing up and facing the commode ) from some male person in their family, usually the father. The father has to urinate in front of the child so that the child can get the idea. That is how my son learned and I presume the same way I learned.It was during the lessons with my son, and it took more than once, that he pointed and compared. He and I began the discussion about body parts and their names. I don't think my son remembers any of that. There are a lot of childhood experiences that are not remembered and no one is the worse for it.

Do you always ask snide questions or do you really need to have things explained ?

I read you link to the Australasian College of Physicians. I concede that the report states that routine circumcision is not medically necessary. However the report also recommends that parents' wishes in this matter be granted. Also, the report also states there is "...psychological distress felt by some males circumcised as infants." Is this really a problem ? I assume the CDC report is correct that 79% of males are circumcised. But no matter; I know no one who has ever complained of this. And the report did not cite any evidence. I would have liked to have seen a foot note or something.

Nick said: Also, the report also states there is "...psychological distress felt by some males circumcised as infants." Is this really a problem ?

Check out this article on the psychological effects of circumcision: http://knol.google.com/k/-/circumcision-and-human-behavior/2y9nanfagw8nr/13#

(see next comment for another link)

(previous comment continued)

See also this book, Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma

Moreta,

There is nothing dangerous about a vagina. My experience with former girlfriends and present wife is that I usually itch after sex for 2-3 days unless I wash right after. Maybe some guys are luckier. But the example I used, and perhaps it was a bad one, was to illustrate that small particles of various things ( dirt, bacteria, seepage, urine, etc. ) can be trapped inside the prepuce leading to various maladies including infection.

Spork,

Oh, no! Not another Knol debate about a fetish site.

I read your link, especially the section on "Behavior in Later Life" of cut males. Man, if some male has some or all of those problems, the reasons are beyond cut vs uncut.

Nick, and all other using the hygiene aspect as justification...particles get trapped in nooks and crannies all over the body. It's why we bathe. If a boy isn't properly trained to wash his body, foreskin isn't going to make much of a difference either way. And since we're on the subject, how hygienic do you think it is to expose a freshly circumcised penis (unhealed, open wound) to a diaper full of shit? It's not like those things are bandaged--they're literally just in the diaper. Don't get me started on labial folds; if things get messy enough down there, a girl might have to do some excavating to get clean, yet you don't hear people screaming about removing labia to make things easier.

If an uncircumcised adult decides he's having too much trouble with smegma buildup or what have you, and wants to get the chop, by all means he should go for it. It's his CHOICE--the same can't be said for the hours-old infant who isn't even aware he has a penis.

Spork -

The links you’ve provided show a correlation between Trauma (PTSD) and circumcision. While I couldn't dismiss that trauma may result in some males after the procedure (there is always some form of trauma with anything unpleasant – but not necessarily to the degree necessary to cause this disorder). I think identifying such a diagnosis for a one time event may be a little bit of a stretch.

ONE traumatic situation does not a PTSD diagnosis make (unless we are talking murder, rape, watching a playmate get hit by a car) at least not one that will continue on into adult years.

I mean, we are all born? Being born is pretty traumatic for an infant.

Perhaps there *could* be a relationship between the type of culture or family who would be more likely to get their sons circumcised and PTSD. But I don't see a strong argument for surgery alone being the root cause.

Long term PTSD resulting from infant and childhood trauma has a lot more to do with the surrounding environment and repeated events over a longer periods of time than it does with one specific event.

Of course, some people are more susceptible to getting PTSD than others (in the genes). For this reason alone, I wouldn’t completely dismiss your study, but with no other life factors provided for these males – it makes it a little difficult for me to believe.

I think these were the photos that changed lovelysouls mind
http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched4ga.html

And here is the page with all the other photos and various horror stories

http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html

And here is an acount and photos from myspace
http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html#major

Yes, thanks, Lujlp. You must click on all the different conditions such a "skin bridges" to see all of the various photos.

Nick I only make snide comments when someone presents an unreasonable point. Especially when it is in defence of an unreasonable act. What difference could it have possibly made in the situation you describe? Yours was already different in many other ways. It was bigger and hairier all things you probably explained, if he had a foreskin would that have mattered? Let's keep in mind that circumcision in the US only became common after WW2 so at some point a generation or two ago intact dads were potty training their circumcised sons. Going the other direction isn't a problem, if nothing else the Australians demonstraited that as circumcision used to be common their too until doctors started disuading it.

To further the poi t about washing and potential problems, how do you think we survived this long if the foreskin was as much trouble as professed onthe site you linked to? Did you know secular circumcision is rare outside the US?

Finally, yes the RACP does make an exception for "parents' wishes" this is only really a nod to religous groups though. This shouldn't be mistaken for the belief that their is any reasonable clinical reason to circumcise as a matter of routine in the neonatal or childhood period.

And yes their are groups of men who are crass at the notion they were circumcised for nothing more than their parents' whim. Their numbers are small but growing.

"There is nothing dangerous about a vagina. My experience with former girlfriends and present wife is that I usually itch after sex for 2-3 days unless I wash right after."

Sounds like yeast. She has it, you get it, give it back to her, etc. You both need to be treated. It's very common.

Yeah, lovelysoul! So glad you're coming around to our side! My DH wanted son cut, I didn't. There have been studies showing female genital mutilation lowers HIV risk too. Are we willing to go there? If not, why do so with male genital mutilation?

I'm not circumsizing any sons I might have. But then, its not culturally expected for me. My husband's not cut, my brother's not cut... (and yes, my mother did help him wash when he was very little. She also wiped his ass. Such is life).

If I have a son, I plan on getting him circumcised because I have only been with 1 guy who was uncut and I prefer the cut look. Also, in my neck of the woods, it is pretty uncommon for boys to be uncut and like was stated above, I don't want him to be 'different' from his peers and father.

Well thank god you dont plan on having a daugter in the middle east.

Also why do you plan on having sex with your son if you dont mind my asking

LUJLP!

I do think this choice should be up to the discretion of the parents, but "I want him to be like everyone else!!!!" seems like such a weak reason to have surgery done on your infant. My mother wasn't being political or anything when she chose not to circumsize my little brother; she said she just had such a visceral reaction when she held her tiny little baby and thought about having pieces of him sliced off.

For what it's worth, he is 21, completely disgusting in terms of hygiene but hasn't (to my knowledge) had any problems in terms of infection and certainly hasn't had problems gettin' any (he drunk-dials me and over-shares).

Swiss Army, I know that there are boosters, but most adults I know never get boosters unless needed to travel or some other reason. And for chicken pox which is rarely more than a nuisance in children, I just don't see the point. Its like anti bacterial stuff. I was always taught that the body needs to build its immunity and learn to fight infection. By using anti bacterial everything, you are allowing the germs to build strength until eventually you have germs that are stronger than most things meant to kill them. Look at all of the flesh eating cases. I never get sick, ever. My best friend who owns every kind of disinfectant and is obsessed with wiping down surfaces all day gets sick constantly. Why do you think that is?
Anyway, back to the circumcision topic....my boys were circumcised. I was a young mother and remember being horrified but caved to the cultural pressure. Later I met friends from Italy who were not cut and couldn't understand the desire to circumcise a penis. If I had to re-do it, I wouldn't do it again. I would not let my daughter be subject to it and can't figure out how I allowed my sons. The pediatrician didn't even do it. The OBGYN did it which I always wondered about.

Kristen, that is one of the real problems. Many parents aren't even aware they have a choice. For some reason US doctors often push hard for circumcision. We are unique in that. It's slowly changing but bad habits are hard to break.

Casey said: If I have a son, I plan on getting him circumcised because I have only been with 1 guy who was uncut and I prefer the cut look. Also, in my neck of the woods, it is pretty uncommon for boys to be uncut and like was stated above, I don't want him to be 'different' from his peers and father.

This argument makes my blood boil. "You should mutilate your son's penis because, as a woman, I prefer the look of a circumcised penis over a non-circumcised one". Well, how would you react if I suggested you mutilate your daughter's vagina for no other reason than I prefer the look of it circumcised vs. intact? You'd probably tell me to go fuck myself (and rightfully so). Have you ever thought that maybe you prefer the circumcised look because it's what you're used to, and you wouldn't have that preference if we hadn't started circumcising in the first place?

That foreskin you plan on cutting off will amount to be, on average, 15 square inches (that's a 3x5 index card) of extra skin, which ends up being a bit of girth. Don't women prefer thicker guys?

Here is a list of other things that are lost (forever) when you slice up the otherwise healthy genitalia of your son. But I suppose it's okay because, hey, at least it looks good to you (as someone who will never even be using it).

Feebie, it was Casey who said "If I have a son, I plan on getting him circumcised . . . I prefer the cut look"

Why whould her sexual preferences matter to the way her sons penis is treated if she has no intention of fucking him when he gets older?

Its a perfectly valid question.

Tell me ladies how would you react if some guy said he liked the way his various sex parnters fake silicone breast implants looked so much that he planned on having a set installed on his daughter without her consent?

Don't bother, folks. People like Casey are either pulling your chain, or worse, so goddam dumb there is no point.

I obviously didn't phrase that well but it is pretty ridiculous you all think I want to fuck my non-existent son. Yes, I am used to the cut look and honestly, the guys who were uncut were made fun of in school. Sorry I want my possible future son to have the 'normal' look. If circumcision was not the norm, I'm sure I would be fine not getting him cut.

Call me a sheep, but don't call me dumb.

A hard uncut dick doesn't look fundamentally different than a cut one. It's when they are limp that there's a difference.

To me, cut ones are a bit freaky, like pierced ones, which I've also seen. The difference is the pierced guys chose to get pierced. A fundamental difference, IMO.

Call me a sheep, but don't call me dumb.

Posted by: Casey

Whats worse a person who simple doesnt know better, or one who does know and choose the wrong thing anyway Casey

Did you bother to look at those photos?

I swam in highschool, I spent years in the service, I never saw a single circumcised penis that wasnt messed up in one way or another.

Most "succsesful" circumcisions are guys who were lucky enough that their skin streched far enough to compensate without forcing the penis to wind up partially buried, or bent in one direction or another.

Tell me Casey, the doctor will have no idea how long or wide your future childs penis will become, how then can he accuratly gauge the amount of skin to cut off?

Do me a favor rip one of your fingernails off of a finger, that is how tightly fused an infants skin is to the head of his penis.

While your at it why not put rings around his neck, or use weights to modify his skull shape

Casey, you're not a sheep, you're a monster. You're telling us you would intentionally mutilate (yes, it is mutilation) the healthy genitalia of your child for no other reason than 1) you like the look, and 2) so they won't get made fun of in school, which is all of what - 13 years (less than 1/5) of their life? Your kid is going to get made fun of. Everyone does. If it's not his foreskin, it'll be something else. Get over it. I personally have never witnessed anyone being made fun of for being uncut or cut. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but Jesus H. Christ. What a trivial bullshit reason to do that to someone. It's people like you who so adamantly spit in the face of reason that make me lose a little more faith in humanity.

Spartee, you're right. I don't know why I even bother.

I can speak as someone who has been on both sides of this issue. I do, personally, prefer a cut male, and I am with one. That's all I've ever known, so, of course, there is a personal bias. If all males could achieve the result of the ideal circumcision, then I'd be for it. It is a lot more hygenic and more attractive, in my honest opinion.

And I don't feel I'm sexist in that view. I don't consider female genitalia that attractive either, and have gone to great lengths to make mine "lovely" in the way that male modern porn dictates, meaning lazered-off pubic hair. I've spent a small fortune making mine more attractive to the opposite sex. And if there was some minor cutting that would also make it more attractive, while not negating my sexual pleasure, I would probably opt for that too.

Yet, seeing the photos of what circumcision has done to some of these boys, I thought, as a mother, could I live with that outcome? It isn't worth it for aesthetics, or even the rare disease deterent.

I guess it is somewhat similar to parents who now give their daughter's breast implants on their 18th birthday. They believe that they are doing what they can to make their daughter attractive to the opposite sex, and that is really what many mothers are doing when they have their sons circumcised.

But I don't think most mothers understand the risks, as I surely didn't. Most of us have successful outcomes with our sons, and if that could be guaranteed, it would be great. But this is major surgery, and now I see that there are obvious complications, that, although they may not lead to death, for a boy, they are almost as psychologically devastating. So, it just isn't worth it. Now, I would tell my daughter not to circumcise.

I'm not feeling the comparison between circumcision and fake breasts. If a woman of consenting age would like to enlarge her breasts, that is her choice. Nobody is claiming health reasons for getting implants. It isn't done against her will or without anasthetics. A circumcision for a male is done as an infant and without anything to ease the pain.
After my second son, I remember asking the nurse about the circumcision. She told me that it was done without anasthesia because according to I don't know who, the nervous system wasn't functioning yet or in shock from labor. I remember thinking the explanation was bullshit and asked her how could they possibly know. I asked what proof they have that the child feels no pain and she finally shrugged and admitted that there probably is pain but that it lasts seconds. I was horrified and guilt ridden for not asking before my first son was circumcised. I would not do it again.

I have a son who is now 23. He was born in an army hospital(government hospital) in Oklahoma. At the time of his birth I was asked if I wanted him circumsized or not. I said no. My father was not circumcized when he was born (at home) in 1913. He was later circumsized when he was drafted for WWII. My husband (my son's father) is circumcized and I can still see the horrible wide scar on his penis. When this topic came up a few weeks ago I asked my son if not being circumcized had any affect on him. He said "no" I asked him if he was ever teased at school about it or worried about it in any way. He said "no" I asked him if he regretted that I had made that decision for him or if he would change it now if he could. He said "no" Was he teased at school? Not about that. He was harassed in public junior high because he was not as big as the 9th graders and I pulled him out and sent him to Catholic school where they had better discipline. When he was in the 9th grade he was over 6 feet tall and the harassment stopped. His 16 year old sister stopped picking fights with him then too because she knew she would get the worst of it. :-) Isabel

No, it doesn't exactly compare, yet I think most women have been sold a bill of goods when it comes to breast implants too.

Even though young girls submit to them, they have no idea of the complications - for one, they have to be replaced every 10 years, or they can rupture. I just had a friend who had to go on vacation with one deflated breast and one inflated because one burst. They get hard and unattractive, at least in private, and most men prefer them natural, so it's kind of a rip-off.

The comparison is that many women die during surgery or are physically mutilated trying to have them. I have a girlfriend whose nipples are completely ruined from implant surgery - one big, scarred and flat, and the other normal but higher. She looks great with clothes on, but naked, she is totally mutilated.

Lovelysoul, I'm sorry your friend had trouble, but you're not entirely correct about implants. Not all need to be replaced every ten years. Not all become hardened and uattractive in private, and not all men prefer them natural. Its important for a woman considering breast enhancement to be sure she sees several surgeons and that the one she eventually chooses is board certified. There is always a risk with plastic surgery, but I know many people who have had cosmetic surgery that were very happy with their results and felt that it improved their quality of life, myself included.

Its a personal choice and completely different from the idea of how the head of a penis should look. Someone said it earlier. Anyone preferring a cut head only prefers it because that is what we were raised to think is normal. The first time I saw an uncut one it looked strange to me, but not ugly, and I got used to it. If it could be proven to me that it is medically necessary and done in a pain free manner, I'd be all for it. Knowing what I know now, I think its terrible how much it is just taken for granted that that is what a mother will do in the hospital.

And please don't get me started about a bris. I can't imagine anything more barbaric than a party where people stand around watching a circumcision and celebrating it in the name of God. Aren't we against doing that to women in African countries? Without getting the whole gender argument going here, why are our little boys any less deserving of our protection from such a thing?

"Yes, I am used to the cut look and honestly, the guys who were uncut were made fun of in school."

I'll try to set aside the notion of mutilation for cosmetic reasons to just say this: If you don't want your son made fun of in school, please, *please*, I implore you, raise him fit and strong (habits of exercise) and send him for training in some kind of marshal arts. Teach him to be confident and defend himself. It's that simple. Raising him to meekly try to conform is the worst thing you can do --- and if you don't raise him to be able to stand up for himself, the other boys WILL find something else to pick on him for. They don't do it because you're "different", they do it because it's what boys do; they're testing for areas of weakness.

Where I grew up, I don't recall any boys getting made fun of one way or the other. Some boys were circumcised, some weren't, the boys generally all knew and understood what it meant, and that's all, it was a non-issue. I can imagine it might be in other places,

Nick: "illustrate that small particles of various things ... can be trapped inside the prepuce leading to various maladies including infection."

And that's why millions of men are dropping dead and/or their penises rotting and dropping off from prepuce infections? Um, no, that's not happening, even though it seems to be the picture you paint of what would happen if most men went uncut. You make "an infection" sound like something horrible; reality is we get infections all the time, in all sorts of odd body parts, and we don't go about cutting any of them off. And if proper cleaning is all you need to prevent these - well, come on.

One of my main arguments against circumcision (though I am circumcised), apart from the obvious common reasons e.g. botched circumcisions, reduced sensation, no rational reason to do it, is that we have no way to know that we *aren't* causing permanent psychological trauma in some percentage of men. I've always been prone to depression since early childhood, and while I have no way of knowing, I can't help but wonder if this event might not have played some part in making me this way. And science doesn't know one way or the other; your argument that it "doesn't harm infants psychologically" is completely made up, you have no legitimate science to base that on, just blind faith.

The argument used against FGM in Africa is that its a silly local cultural custom to quote "keep women chaste" and virginal aka patriarchal men keeping women down. Of course, many will stay PC and say its cultural not religious so as not to be seen as harping on Islam. Nevermind that a lot of the pro circ. stuff in the west was started by folks looking to stop boys from jerkin it and keep them moral and chaste. I'm living proof that theory is bogus and I have 3 nice little scars on my "little head".

Its a hypocrisy that baffles and angers me to no end. It occurs across political and religious lines. Muslims are pro circ too in many areas of the world.

Blah, blah, mutilation, blah blah. A li'l snip of some spare tissue that ain't all that attractive to begin with ain't mutilation, but boy does it get some people get all exercised. I'm entirely with Crid. Cock neurosis is never becoming on a dude.

>>I obviously didn't phrase that well but it is pretty ridiculous you all think I want to fuck my non-existent son. Yes, I am used to the cut look and honestly, the guys who were uncut were made fun of in school. Sorry I want my possible future son to have the 'normal' look. If circumcision was not the norm, I'm sure I would be fine not getting him cut.

Call me a sheep, but don't call me dumb.

You are neither a sheep or dumb. As a traumatized "cut" man, I'd like to take this moment to thank my mother many many many times over. Never mind the "look" argument (even though the repeated phrase from women I have heard talk on it is the "cut one looks way better"), there is the hygiene argument. An argument that is simply this: Requiring special hygiene that not done can possibly cause multiple medical issues versus simply showering. A removal of a very tiny ring of skin (no flesh, no fingers, and all the other over dramatic analogies) and you have 60 years of no extra hygiene work needed (21 thousand times of no special hygiene effort). Never mind the "cock neurosis is never becoming of a dude" dudes (LOL)....if women, as a baby, could have a very tiny circle of skin (only skin) removed that had no effect on their sexual function at all (and I am talking nothing like present day FGM), and they would no longer need any special "feminine" hygiene procedures.....would you still call this an unneeded barbaric mutilation tantamount to chopping off the end of a finger? Or would some be upset and up in arms about those people against this procedure? That it is holding back the rights of women? Oh, and let's say too, that this procedure also contributed some level of warding off diseases and medical complications (and social hygiene embarrassment)?
Lastly, enough of the FGM and western male circumcision comparisons. Stop the madness now!! This is like saying a stoning in Afghanistan is the same as a game of dodge ball at the local school yard. (well hey! They are both getting things thrown at them).

Male circumcision makes sense from a medical and standard of living perspective (again, never mind the 'what looks right' argument). The over emotion from some on this argument aside (The extent to which people will exaggerate to win a point is astounding!), the logic is undeniable. With that said, I now need to go out and do violence somewhere cause of the memories of my violent circumcision trauma at age .003 years old. Hmmm, or was it the trauma of getting dropped on my head at age .012 years old?

Our son, born in the US, is not cut, I saw no sense in it. Here in Japan no one's done and we don't have a problem with infections etc that they threaten will happen in the US when you say 'no ' to circumcision. I got a whole song and dance from a nurse on the ward about all the bad things that can happen if you're not snipped. I just wondered aloud how all the men in Japan manage and she left me alone...the pediatrician and my obstetrician said 'don't bother', which only confirmed what we already thought, and so we didn't have it done.

TW clearly you don't know anything about what you are talking about. There is no special hygiene necessary, how do you think we all survived in the years before plumbing? If you are concerned about being able to wash your cock, you have larger issues.

And male circumcision doesn't make any sense at all, that's why the RACP just published this statement:

http://racp.edu.au/download.cfm?DownloadFile=59AE2C7C-9F08-B344-21061157DF3636B9

I've joined the conversation after crid has finished with the usual insults and dismissals. I feel so cheated.

SwissArmyD:

The issue is forced circumcision, not who initiates that force. For the circumcised male, why does he care whether circumcision is mandated by the government or merely by his parents? The result for him is still forced circumcision.

We absolutely need to refute (and mock) the CDC's biased nonsense. But the work isn't done after success there.

"and they would no longer need any special "feminine" hygiene procedures...."

You realize there are NO special "feminine hygeine" procedures, right? Much like normal penis's, our parts clean themselves quite well, all on their own.

Best cock I EVER had-and I've had more than a few-was uncut. Super clean, great size, lots of fun. And the guy didn't feel a need to just jackhammer me to make up for his loss of sensation. Hmmm......
He was in the military and did mixed martial arts fights. I doubt he was ever made fun of for his penis.

Let's take a look at reality:

The USA has had circumcision rates as high as 90%, yet has an epidemic of HIV and STD's much higher than intact Europe and Japan---???

The surest sign of stupidity is to keep repeating the same mistake hoping for a different outcome.

>>TW clearly you don't know anything about what you are talking about.

Forgive me for that.... I was educated in a public school born from a society that forces mutilation with no good reason. How could you expect higher level thinking from me?

>>There is no special hygiene necessary,

A human male has a significant fold of skin in an area prone to moisture and there is no special hygiene needed? Ok. How about I remove the word "special"? We can call it good old fashioned hygienic elbow grease? Or a cool acronym like ASH (Anti smegma hyper-hygiene)?

>>You realize there are NO special "feminine hygeine" procedures, right? Much like normal penis's, our parts clean themselves quite well, all on their own.

Again, forgive my use of the word "special".

I can only speak to my experience with the females I lived with. Your own hygienic habits certainly are your own....

Clean themselves all on their own? Ahem, next....

>>Best cock I EVER had-and I've had more than a few-was uncut. Super clean, great size, lots of fun. And the guy didn't feel a need to just jackhammer me to make up for his loss of sensation. Hmmm......
He was in the military and did mixed martial arts fights. I doubt he was ever made fun of for his penis.

Wow. So maybe only large Kung Fu able men should not be circumcized? Maybe they can have a doctor in the delivery room to determine if a guy is going to be a 100 pound weakling, and he/she can go "you better circumcize this eventual weakling. And for god sake name him Mike or Joe! Nothing that they can use to tease or make fum of!
Your argument there is almost entirely based on emotion and simple preference(which you certainly have a right to make). However, on the human body, when there is a tight folded area of skin on skin (especially prone to moisture) there is going to be hygiene necessities associated with that. That isn't up for debate, that is a fact. People THAT is a fact. Does this mean it can't be clean? Of course not. It will require ASH though, lol. Listen, there are the following arguments: 1, I don't like circumcision or the circumsized penis. That is a relative position that is neither right or wrong. 2, I don't believe in an elective surgical procedure that is not necessary in the abstract, and any medical procedure has risk and/or the benefits of it are unworthy. That certainly is an argument that has discussion merit. However, stop with the "it's like FGM in Africa" or "it cleans itself/no hygiene is necessary" or that an area that would be a positive bacterial growth area would not cause potential medical issues or jack hammering is necessary to make up for lacking sensation etc etc etc. It is the kind of nonsense, from what anti-circumcision stuff I have read, that just makes it clear many of their anti-circumcision sentiment is based simply on 'they simply don't like it' (and trying any argument to win the point).
Now y'all go find a better use of your time than talking about this subject... you smegma loving freaks...(fyi, I am just joking around on that one)

TW said:

Forgive me for that.... I was educated in a public school born from a society that forces mutilation with no good reason. How could you expect higher level thinking from me?

A human male has a significant fold of skin in an area prone to moisture and there is no special hygiene needed? Ok. How about I remove the word "special"? We can call it good old fashioned hygienic elbow grease? Or a cool acronym like ASH (Anti smegma hyper-hygiene)?

That would be incorrect too. The way you take care of an intact boy is to drop him into a warm bath from time to time. That's it. You will spend more time maintaining other parts of him such as: washing his hair, brushing his teeth, or wiping his ass. All things that you will have to do and that he will have to learn and all things that will require a far more significant amount of time than his penis, which requires none.

Here is the AAP care guide which tells you essentially the same thing. When they are old enough all they have to do is occasionally retract, rinse, and replace. No scrubbing or elbow grease needed, nothing hard. It will come naturally, how hard do you think it is to get a boy to rub his dick in the shower anyway?

TW said:

...tease or make fun of..?

TW said:

It will require ASH though, lol. Listen, there are the following arguments:

TW said:

1, I don't like circumcision or the circumsized penis. That is a relative position that is neither right or wrong. 2, I don't believe in an elective surgical procedure that is not necessary in the abstract, and any medical procedure has risk and/or the benefits of it are unworthy.

1. Is certainly a common and valid argument. 2. Not an argument in the abstract. When no clinical indication exists, medical intervention is not warranted. That's just the way medicine is practiced. Circumcision is the exception to the rule.

Perhaps you could provide an objective reason why circumcision should be permitted. Why the only individual who it affects is left out of the decision.

Julie listens to the crickets after Joe's last question

> Julie listens to the crickets

Julie came late to a poorly-attended, uninspired party.

> Why the only individual who it
> affects is left out of the decision

Because he's too young. And it has effects on others, too.

Crid said:

> Why the only individual who it
> affects is left out of the decision

Because he's too young. And it has effects on others, too.

Why not wait and let him decide for himself? Really, what effect?

The NY Times asks readers to come up with fresh definitions for common words. Among this year's batch was: "circumvent - a hole in the underwear that Jewish men wear."

Just thought that was funny.