Efforts to Ban Circumcision Gain Traction

[cerberusxp]

Circumcision is mainly a health issue as it gets pretty nasty under the foreskin. Makes it much easier for infections and filth collection. A circumcised male is much more hygiene than uncircumcised and less likely to get infections and collect dirt and such.

[Condescending]

It's not the sight.

After having been a home health aid for a while.. and having to clean a few men who were not snipped.. *eye twitches uncontrollably* That be some *NASTY* funk there man... I'm talking thick.. wet.. yellowish.. *gags* Lords it took all I had to keep my stomach contents down. And these were not guys who were incapable of keeping themselves clean.

No thanks. I'll stick to guys who were cut.

And it is laughable to say that a cut gent is less friendly to a woman. Never had an issue with it. Much more fun too. (and I've been with both.. so yes, I know)

Fascinating argumentation

[theGhost_and_theDarkness]

Fascinating argumentation

Sorta makes you wanna eat some cottage cheese doesn't it. <--we're going to pretend this was a pukey face.

A

nd as for those grubs who failed to attend to their personal cleanliness, I would have been refused the task in your shoes, but that would depend on how much you needed the work, I guess.

I thinks its something that's sort of mandatory if you're going into something like a nursing field. Two of my friends are in nursing school and enjoy recounting their wonderful stories to me over lunch.

Edited June 11, 2011 by theGhost_and_theDarkness

[cerberusxp]

Sorry I only read the first part on page one and added my 2 cents two posts up. Boy sure glad my mom was nurses aid and had the Doc do me right after birth. Been with a good number of women who always wanted more. Kinda like Bob on the enzite commercial.

[MissMelsWell]

But yes it is a very d ebated topic because the baby isn't choosing, and no baby is happy about getting one esp if you've been in the back room, it really is barbaric no matter the tools used, it is cutting and snipping away while holding in straps, and giving sugar water to the baby in most cases...

I beg to differ... I've been to 5 brits' done by a mohel (a jewish friend of mine has 5 sons, in 5 years... insane right there. LOL). It's kind of a weird ceremony, but hardly barbaric. I was in no way uncomfortable or particularly concerned for the health or pain for the child. They didn't seem to be in total agony. Some squealing and pain for a few minutes, but not that terrified panicked cry babies get when they're truly freaked. One of my friends sons barely cried at all... the youngest, he probaby wailed the most, but it was pretty short lived really all things considered.

Perhaps this is just another one of those reasons why I just don't see what the big deal is.

I don't know what made you think it was so barbaric, but I didn't see it that way at all. Or, maybe Mohel's are just better at it that doctors; I haven't a clue.

[Persia]

I still remember when I was a child,they have done this to the muslim kids and jewish kids . all of them did that for the religion and they told me that nobody has been agreed with this tradition. the boys have cried and cried,blood and pain ... but then his parents have given many parties and has always been a celebration for them.

[FLOMBIE]

Because it was on their work order. It was what the county Nurse and Doctors wanted done. *shrugs*

And the difference between female circ is that they actually remove the clitoris (glans counterpart for the male's) Not just the hood (which would be the dangly foreskin for the male) See the purpose for female circ is to make sure they do not have any sexual feelings what so ever. To remove that bundle of nerves. That does not happen when you remove the foreskin. Like I said, been with both.. they both felt sexual excitement. Their "bundle of nerves" were still intact on the circ'd man. They still had their glans which holds all those nerve endings.

The other difference is, female circs are brutal.. done on the floor of huts.. mostly with nonsurgical tools and around the age the female gets her first period. A male's circ is done in hospitals, by doctors (or rabbis with the proper skill) clean.. safe.. oh and when they're babies so they really can't remember the pain. While a female is scared for life.

This topic is about male circumcision, but I still feel like pointing some things out about male/female circumcision. First, I do not like the argument that men should not complain, since female circumcision is much worse. Yes, in some cases it is, but not generally. In the most common form of female circumcision the clitoris is not removed; only the hood is removed. There are 3 types of female circumcision, with type 3 being the most radical and brutal: Removal of nearly all sensitive parts.

Now is male circumcision by far not as radical as type 3, but it stays mutilation! It is not only removal of the foreskin, but also removal of the frenulum, which is the most sensitive part of the penis.

And do you think that circumcisions in Yemen, Pakistan or Algeria are always done in a clean environment like a hospital? That is just silly.

All kinds of circumcision are an archaic an brutal tradition that needs to be banned once and for all!

Edited June 11, 2011 by FLOMBIE

[questionmark]

It's not the sight.

After having been a home health aid for a while.. and having to clean a few men who were not snipped.. *eye twitches uncontrollably* That be some *NASTY* funk there man... I'm talking thick.. wet.. yellowish.. *gags* Lords it took all I had to keep my stomach contents down. And these were not guys who were incapable of keeping themselves clean.

No thanks. I'll stick to guys who were cut.

And it is laughable to say that a cut gent is less friendly to a woman. Never had an issue with it. Much more fun too. (and I've been with both.. so yes, I know)

So, next you are going to advocate cutting off hands cause some people don't wash their hands after going to the toilet?

[puridalan]

Not at all. What so many of you are failing to understand about this debate is that, in America, the cultural norm is circumcision (at least with my generation). Just as, if you were to go to a country with lip plating, you would seem rather strange, so men with foreskin seem here.

Seeing one for the first time is a little bit frightening. We aren't typically used to it and, again this is my generation, it is almost a taboo. Not socially acceptable. Many a men have been avoided (sexually) because of it. It may seem sad in a place where this is not the case, but, as I have said before, that's just how culture works. I would hope that explanation would help things along, but somehow I doubt it. . .

I'll be sure to tell my perfectly happy child that he needs to be protected from me.

You are wrong the cultural norm is NOT circumcision as much as you think, I thought the same thing, till I watched one personally and till I was told the stats by a doctor who does them everyday, he still says its 50/50, meaning that about fifty pecent of american boys today do and the other don't..and in fact he personally think it's going back the other way..however that can't be measured yet. But no its not like the number are 80/20 like people think, its more 50/50. Most just make the assumption.

[puridalan]

Because it was on their work order. It was what the county Nurse and Doctors wanted done. *shrugs*

And the difference between female circ is that they actually remove the clitoris (glans counterpart for the male's) Not just the hood (which would be the dangly foreskin for the male) See the purpose for female circ is to make sure they do not have any sexual feelings what so ever. To remove that bundle of nerves. That does not happen when you remove the foreskin. Like I said, been with both.. they both felt sexual excitement. Their "bundle of nerves" were still intact on the circ'd man. They still had their glans which holds all those nerve endings.

The other difference is, female circs are brutal.. done on the floor of huts.. mostly with nonsurgical tools and around the age the female gets her first period. A male's circ is done in hospitals, by doctors (or rabbis with the proper skill) clean.. safe.. oh and when they're babies so they really can't remember the pain. While a female is scared for life.

I really don't like this statement, I too have been in the health field and had to clean not so 'nice' things and yes if you do not clean anything properly it can obviuosly get some junk up there, believe me same is for women and much easier for them as it's not all hanging out and there are lots of cervices. Point is I don't go judging them because some of them as you state are incapable of cleaning and they do need assistance, hence why you were there. Personally, I won't judge if it it's 'snipped' or it's not you are dealing with all kinds of uncleanly things in those settings, our job is to help clean up best as possible, give them better health care tips in the future ect. The point in ending is that just because you do still have everything intact doesn't mean you are goign to be less clean, you might have to clean..but dear lord doesn't take that long to freaking clean -.- and yes if they are that lazy..you can't blame it on them not being cir'ced. it's them being dang lazy! (or as you stated the inability to clean for whwatever reasons, in which cases we should be sensative too)

[puridalan]

I beg to differ... I've been to 5 brits' done by a mohel (a jewish friend of mine has 5 sons, in 5 years... insane right there. LOL). It's kind of a weird ceremony, but hardly barbaric. I was in no way uncomfortable or particularly concerned for the health or pain for the child. They didn't seem to be in total agony. Some squealing and pain for a few minutes, but not that terrified panicked cry babies get when they're truly freaked. One of my friends sons barely cried at all... the youngest, he probaby wailed the most, but it was pretty short lived really all things considered.

Perhaps this is just another one of those reasons why I just don't see what the big deal is.

I don't know what made you think it was so barbaric, but I didn't see it that way at all. Or, maybe Mohel's are just better at it that doctors; I haven't a clue.

My question was first off how was it done? Secondly, at what age was it done? Are we talking about right out of the wombe basically snip snip or a few months down the road..because htat makes a big difference.

[theGhost_and_theDarkness]

You are wrong the cultural norm is NOT circumcision as much as you think, I thought the same thing, till I watched one personally and till I was told the stats by a doctor who does them everyday, he still says its 50/50, meaning that about fifty pecent of american boys today do and the other don't..and in fact he personally think it's going back the other way..however that can't be measured yet. But no its not like the number are 80/20 like people think, its more 50/50. Most just make the assumption.

That depends entirely on your generation. Perhaps today they aren't done so often, but the decade I was born in the numbers were more 80/20. So most of the men within my age range have had it done. That makes it the cultural norm for my generation, as stated.

[The Silver Thong]

I was adopted due to a young lady having sex at 15 she drank and did drugs. I was born with 6 fingers on each hand. I had those extra digits cut off the same time I was snipped, so I have been told. I remeber nothing of it, thank goodness.

Do I concider the snip mutilation, no I don`t. Do I think its right no and yes. Its a parents choice. I could have been left with 6 fingers on each hand but they took them away with out thinking I could have used them in math class lol

Is this about mutilation or choice. I think the term mutilation is going overboard in this regard. As an infant can anyone say they had a choice in anything that happened to them, no.

Edited June 11, 2011 by The Silver Thong

[SilverCougar]

My question was first off how was it done? Secondly, at what age was it done? Are we talking about right out of the wombe basically snip snip or a few months down the road..because htat makes a big difference.

Circs can be done at any age, however are generally done (within the western countries.. since various islamic cultures do after a few years from birth) within the first month of being born. That is considered the norm.

[puridalan]

That depends entirely on your generation. Perhaps today they aren't done so often, but the decade I was born in the numbers were more 80/20. So most of the men within my age range have had it done. That makes it the cultural norm for my generation, as stated.

I highly doubt the decade you were born in the numbers were that rate, you are biased, and no that isn't the rate even in 'your' generation. If you wish I can even give you stats for your generation vs others, stop being biased. By the way looked at your age I am 21 and your 25, about same generation dear, laughs, you really need to do your research.

To the other being, yes it is mutilation, there is no way around that, now you may not consider it to be a bad form of mutilation whatsoever, but it is what it is. It is the parent's choice as of now. And for the US the Peds Urology dept will not do a circ on a baby that is over 12 lbs and or so many months, I'd have to re-look at how many months it is. The bad news about circs...if you cut too much skin off you can't go back; however, if you leave a little bit on more than normal which might not be considered a 'full' circ or rather full circ look then that would be the better choice, depends on the doctor ect.

Here is an interesting read against those who have the 'germ' theory: http://www.circumstitions.com/Utis.html

Edited June 11, 2011 by puridalan

[theGhost_and_theDarkness]

I highly doubt the decade you were born in the numbers were that rate, you are biased, and no that isn't the rate even in 'your' generation. If you wish I can even give you stats for your generation vs others, stop being biased. By the way looked at your age I am 21 and your 25, about same generation dear, laughs, you really need to do your research.

O'Brien-Jul85[14] July 1985 Atlanta, Georgia 89.3%

O'Brien-Sep85[15] September 1985 Atlanta, Georgia 87.5%

O'Brien-Sep86[15] September 1986 Atlanta, Georgia 84.3%

That is the rate in the area I grew up using the year I was born.

And, actually, those few years make a huge difference. The mid 80's were the tipping point (no pun intended) in regards to regional percentages. The 90's showed the biggest declines. Growing up, in our sex ed classes, uncircumcised penises weren't even addressed so was their rarity. I blame that for part of the shock I had when I actually DID see one.

And how on earth am I any more biased than you? I don't care what people decide to do with their children in this regard, you obviously do. I think that would make you slightly more biased.

Edit:

Forgot this and link

A questionnaire on changes in rates and attitudes toward circumcision was sent to the head nurses in 500 urban and suburban hospitals in the U. S. and returned by 311. An average of 76.4 per cent of boys are circumcised. Almost half reported unchanged rates; 43.8 per cent said circumcisions had decreased and 5.5 per cent said they had decreased markedly. Nearly all parents were thought to have decided on circumcision before birth. Few if any physicians were said to counsel parents for or against circumcision.

link

This is from the time frame when I was born.

Edited June 11, 2011 by theGhost_and_theDarkness

[mklsgl]

My question was first off how was it done? Secondly, at what age was it done? Are we talking about right out of the wombe basically snip snip or a few months down the road..because htat makes a big difference.

It's done with a scalpel by a Mohel on the 8th day of a Jewish male's life. The "snip-snip" takes less than 2 seconds.

[puridalan]

No if you read my previous posts I did not say they had to or not, I said it is the parent's choice, I am just on about your stats here, and I can easily pull out stats that say very different from the ones you posted.

MK

and wow that is amazing, that is not how it works in the operating place I have been in it takes around 10 plus minutes to do one...ya.

Edited June 12, 2011 by puridalan

[Michelle]

This link could be of help on the statistics.

http://www.circinfo.net/rates_of_circumcision.html

USA:

Rate is approx. 90% in in the majority white population of males [O'Brien et al., 1995]. About 90% of their circumcisions had been carried out neonatally. A representative, nation-wide survey of all states (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 1999-2004, survey) published in 2007 by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found that the overall rate in the USA was 79%, with rate varying by race and ethnicity, being 88% in non-Hispanic whites, 73% in blacks, 42% in Mexican-Americans and 50% in others [Xu et al., 2007]. In New York City NYC HANES data show circumcision rate to be 74.5% in US born men and 36.8% in men born elsewhere [McKinney et al., 2008]. Rate was 59.8% in men born 1970-1984, 58.4% for those born 1950-1969, and 49.7% for those born before 1950. It was 71.0% in Whites, 57.9% in Blacks, 54.0% in Asians and 30.0% in Hispanic. Those whose eduction was more than a high school diploma had a rate of 63.7%, a high school diploma 51.9% and less than a high school diploma 37.7%. For men who have sex with men it was 67.7% (being 85.3% for those born in the USA and 35.4% for those born elsewhere) and for heterosexual men was 55.7%.

[Habitat]

Rusty weighs in to the argument........

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2011/06/11/2011-06-11_russell_crowe_apologizes_for_calling_circumcision_barbaric_after_actor_is_labele.html

[questionmark]

Rusty weighs in to the argument........

http://www.nydailyne..._is_labele.html

Right, here we are again with the Jewish moral club. We don't like it so it must be antisemitic. They should put on a new record. And it is still barbaric.

[MissMelsWell]

It's done with a scalpel by a Mohel on the 8th day of a Jewish male's life. The "snip-snip" takes less than 2 seconds.

Thank you, you beat me to it.

It's fast, and the kid might squeal for a minute, but some don't even do that; as I mentioned, my friend's oldest son yelped for a second and that was it. The youngest wailed for about 10 minutes, but he's always been a drama queen. LOL The middle three boys, I don't really remember so it must have been some whining for a few minutes and that was it, it wasn't even worth remembering. Of course, this was all 17-22 years ago too. But I do know this... if any of those 5 boys had been actually distressed in any real way, I"d have been horrified, but as it goes, they weren't.

It's DEFINITELY not a barbaric procedure as someone suggested.

[MissMelsWell]

You are wrong the cultural norm is NOT circumcision as much as you think, I thought the same thing, till I watched one personally and till I was told the stats by a doctor who does them everyday, he still says its 50/50, meaning that about fifty pecent of american boys today do and the other don't..and in fact he personally think it's going back the other way..however that can't be measured yet. But no its not like the number are 80/20 like people think, its more 50/50. Most just make the assumption.

That doctor is wrong then. It's very much the cultural norm even still today, although maybe not as much as it was even as recently as the 80s. I'm 44, my daughter is 24. Had she been a boy, born in 1987, she'd have come home from the hospital snipped. The hospital did the proceedure even then nearly by default. You basically had to "opt out" to avoid having it done. Sorry Puri, that's just how it was.

In my age group (boys born in the 60's and 70s), in the USA, for men born here, they're almost all snipped. So much so that I've never even been in a relationship with a guy who wasn't.

[questionmark]

That doctor is wrong then. It's very much the cultural norm even still today, although maybe not as much as it was even as recently as the 80s. I'm 44, my daughter is 24. Had she been a boy, born in 1987, she'd have come home from the hospital snipped. The hospital did the proceedure even then nearly by default. You basically had to "opt out" to avoid having it done. Sorry Puri, that's just how it was.

In my age group (boys born in the 60's and 70s), in the USA, for men born here, they're almost all snipped. So much so that I've never even been in a relationship with a guy who wasn't.

In our generation we also got "tonic wine" to aid our growth, but her claims of 80 percent are substantiated by statistics:

Source

[theGhost_and_theDarkness]

No if you read my previous posts I did not say they had to or not, I said it is the parent's choice, I am just on about your stats here, and I can easily pull out stats that say very different from the ones you posted.

MK

and wow that is amazing, that is not how it works in the operating place I have been in it takes around 10 plus minutes to do one...ya.

Well then we agree. It goes without saying I would equally oppose a proposition that would make it mandatory to circumcise. Where I live now, you get no more than a class about the pros and cons of circumcision, so parents aren't pressured in either way, but, instead are left to make their own decision. Pressuring, in either direction, imo, is wrong.

And 10 minutes? wow. . .it's over in no time at the hospital I had my son at, and very soon after birth.

As for the stats, I suppose since different sets exist then we can't really be sure which one is right. I can only go from the way it was treated where I grew up. *shrugs*