Circumcision: Positive or Negative?

[Aquitaine]

dust1n, has this thread changed/steered your opinion on the practice at all, or are you still on the fence, so-to-speak?

 

[dust1n]

You bunch of chauvenists. Has nobody thought about the women yet? Many young Somali girls should have much to say I think on the topic of circumcision. (man that disgusts me)

Well, I should of specified male circumcision, because that is what I was curious about. Women genitalia mutation is rather horrid.

 

[dust1n]

dust1n, has this thread changed/steered your opinion on the practice at all, or are you still on the fence, so-to-speak?

I don't know how I feel about children yet.

As for personal freedom, do as you please, in regards to your own genitalia.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm very ignorant about the subject. Will somebody enlighten me?

I haven't read through all the post but some people here are making some excellent points. IMO circumcision is pointless. For some strange reason, religiously, it has a place. I think "God" should have "created" us completely circumcised thus avoiding the whole...you won't be part of the "covenant" issue. I wonder if it's just an archaic ritual and not to much different than other religious bodily mutilations we read or hear about.

Being a male I suspect the reason for the foreskin is to prevent infections thus it is a protective skin. It is very important for males to shower/bathed regularly to avoid complications such as UTIs. Some one made the comment of the skin growing and closing thus making it painful to go to the bathroom. Although this is true...doctors will tell you that you should pull back the foreskin before using the bathroom as well as when you shower in order to clean yourself. Over time this will not be an issue. My son is not circumcised and his doctor said that he could use a baby oil or straight mineral oil so that over time the growing skin would not pose a problem.

 

[Aquitaine]

As for personal freedom, do as you please, in regards to your own genitalia.

Yep, I pretty much agree there, and that's one of the reasons I'm against most "forms" of circumcision - because it's virtually always done against the recipient's will.

But again though, for legitimate medical conditions that's another story.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Other than pure medical issues, like what Storm mentioned, there is absolutely no point to circumcising infants - it's pure child abuse.

Rather than cutting off every boy's forskin for this rumoured microscopic hygiene boost, let's give better education to the parents and children directly at how to properly clean one's genetalia.

Don't want an STD? Wear a condom - duh!

Want to be clean down there, then wash down there - duh!

I've never been circumcised thank God, but my Father was (for medical reasons), personally, I'd hate to be circumcised - I bet it hurts like Hell. Besides, it's hardly difficult for one to clean down there anyways.

Bottom line is, for anything other than a sound medical reason, circumcision is pointless child abuse brought on by religious and cultural tradition (i.e, nonesense).

I agree. I was never circumcised either....and never had the issues Storm mentioned. My mother told me to use baby oil. My son's doctor told him the same thing. Take a shower/bath "every" day and one will not have any issues.

Can some one help me understand the STD issue on cut or uncut? How does being uncut help? I thought, normally, during sexual intercourse the foreskin begins to retract. In this case you are exposed so how does that help?

 

[dust1n]

Yep, I pretty much agree there, and that's one of the reasons I'm against most "forms" of circumcision - because it's virtually always done against the recipient's will.

But again though, for legitimate medical conditions that's another story.

Very true. Of course, any forced circumcision of anyone past 6 months of birth is going to make me rather uncomfortable. With babies, it's hard to tell. I just keep getting more studies suggesting it helps, doesn't help, etc. Really, to me at this point of the thread, it seems rather pointless to me, and just serves to create yet another stigma. As a past ritual, it makes sense. Hygeine was never immediately available, but the practice itself in any 'developed' country seems rather outdated.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Can some one help me understand the STD issue on cut or uncut? How does being uncut help? I thought, normally, during sexual intercourse the foreskin begins to retract. In this case you are exposed so how does that help?

The idea is that microbes have a nice warm moist home...the foreskin... to live in, breed etc etc etc

It's of course garbage....there is no penis cancer epidemic, which is a main reason for said circumcision and disease being prevelant with foreskin ..correlation

 

[Smoke]

Can some one help me understand the STD issue on cut or uncut? How does being uncut help? I thought, normally, during sexual intercourse the foreskin begins to retract. In this case you are exposed so how does that help?

Actually, being cut helps. But again, hygiene is key and if condoms are used then circumcision shouldn't even be a factor.

I'm happy being circumcised, but if I had a son I don't think I could bring myself to have that done to him unless it was medically necessary. When my brother's first son was born, I tried to talk him out of having him circumcised, but they decided to go ahead with it.

I of course don't have any memory of my circumcision, but from what my mother has told me, the whole thing was rather traumatic for my parents and grandparents. That was fifty years ago, though; routine circumcision was the norm. Around 90% of American men my age who were born in hospitals were circumcised. I don't think my parents ever considered the question of whether it should be done; it was expected that it be done.

 

[dust1n]

Actually, being cut helps. But again, hygiene is key and if condoms are used then circumcision shouldn't even be a factor.

I'm happy being circumcised, but if I had a son I don't think I could bring myself to have that done to him unless it was medically necessary. When my brother's first son was born, I tried to talk him out of having him circumcised, but they decided to go ahead with it.

I of course don't have any memory of my circumcision, but from what my mother has told me, the whole thing was rather traumatic for my parents and grandparents. That was fifty years ago, though; routine circumcision was the norm. Around 90% of American men my age who were born in hospitals were circumcised. I don't think my parents ever considered the question of whether it should be done; it was expected that it be done.

I think that is basically my story. My father is not religious by any means, but allowed it to happen because there was 'no harm and potential benefits', aka, my parents probably didn't think it made a difference either way. And my father, who has an undying support for this country, is not really one to question big med.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Most of the time i believe it is unnecessary, circumcision that is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As a past ritual, it makes sense. Hygeine was never immediately available, but the practice itself in any 'developed' country seems rather outdated.

It makes sense to perform elective surgery in an unhygeinic environment?

 

[Mr Cheese]

Actually, being cut helps.

How does beign cut help?:sarcastic

 

[Smoke]

How does beign cut help?:sarcastic

Well, you've got me there. Circumcised men are at lower risk for almost any STD you can think of than uncircumcised men, but I don't know why. I would imagine that it's either hygiene problems or injury to the foreskin or both, but I've never seen any data.

However, the increased risk for uncut men is slight, and some studies haven't shown any increased risk at all. Also, circumcision does not lower the risk of STD transmission to the circumcised man's sexual partners.

My personal opinion is that any added medical benefit to routine circumcision is not enough to justify it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

However, the increased risk for uncut men is slight, and some studies haven't shown any increased risk at all. Also, circumcision does not lower the risk of STD transmission to the circumcised man's sexual partners.

I mentioned one study that found a negative correlation between circumcision and cervical cancer: for the entire study group, women with circumcised partners had a statistically significant (but minor) reduction in cervical cancer rates compared to women with uncircumcised partners. However, when they considered only "low-risk" couples (i.e. where neither partner had intercourse before age 17 and neither had engaged in "high risk" activities like using prostitutes), the difference in cervical cancer rates between the women with circumsized partners vs. uncircumsized was statistically insignificant.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Actually, being cut helps. But again, hygiene is key and if condoms are used then circumcision shouldn't even be a factor.

I get it now. Yes. After reading an article from the CDC I see what you mean.

I do agree that hygiene and condoms play their part in prevention. I'd say they play a "major" part.

Condoms are extremely important because if you don't have an STD, whether cut or uncut, you are at risk of an STD. This also means that the partner could be the culprit, carrying and infectious disease and spreading it to you. Cut or uncut you stand the risk of contracting an STD. HIV is a clear indication of this....(IMO)

 

[MSizer]

The traditional way to remove a forskin after it's been cut in Judaism is for the rabbi to use is teeth. I find that highly disgusting, and can't believe that a purity tradition would involve using your teeth to remove a babie's forsking. Just utterly disgusting if you ask me.

 

[dust1n]

It makes sense to perform elective surgery in an unhygeinic environment?

Oh yea.. good point.

 

[dust1n]

The traditional way to remove a forskin after it's been cut in Judaism is for the rabbi to use is teeth. I find that highly disgusting, and can't believe that a purity tradition would involve using your teeth to remove a babie's forsking. Just utterly disgusting if you ask me.

:nom nom nom:

 

[Levite]

The traditional way to remove a forskin after it's been cut in Judaism is for the rabbi to use is teeth. I find that highly disgusting, and can't believe that a purity tradition would involve using your teeth to remove a babie's forsking. Just utterly disgusting if you ask me.

This is false.

Brit milah, or ritual circumcision in Judaism, incorporates three actions: priyah, wherein the membrane securing the foreskin to the glans penis is severed and loosened; milah, the actual removal of the foreskin, which has always been done using a special knife or dedicated scalpel; and metzitzah, wherein the application of pressure or suction is used to provoke a flow of blood. This last is done both because as a ritual, some blood must flow in order to seal the covenant; but historically, it was also done because in pre-modern societies, where they had no reliable disinfectants, it was understood that allowing a wound to bleed a little had the effect of washing it out, and provided for cleaner healing. We are, by the way, not talking about an excess of blood: a small flow, no more than a few drops, is deemed entirely effective.

Now, in pre-modern times, before the advent of medical technology, there were several ways in which metzitzah was done: sometimes the mohel (ritual circumciser) would squeeze gently to provoke bleeding, sometimes the wound was brushed with a cloth, but occasionally, if deemed efficacious, the mohel would suck the wound gently with his lips to provoke bleeding. With the advent of medical technology, at the end of the nineteenth century, most mohalim began to cease using manual pressure or oral suction for metzitzah, instead adopting the use of various kinds of surgical clamps or sterile pipettes, or even a sterile gauze wipe.

Today, the vast majority of Jewish circumcisions use either a surgical clamp, both to protect the penis from error in the cutting, and also to provoke the bleeding for metzitzah, or sometimes the sterile gauze wipe will be used. However, outside of a very tiny section of the most ultra-Orthodox sects, nobody has done oral suction for metzitzah in a hundred years or more.