Routine circumcision began in the United States in the years before the start of the 20th Century as a means to curb masturbation, and became a common procedure during the 1900s. Proponents say it helps stave off urinary tract infections in infant boys, and can offer some protection against contracting sexually transmitted diseases, such as HIV. However, many parents and doctors say the procedure is unnecessary and can cause reduced sexual sensation later in life, as well as traumatic pain and risk of infection at the time of the procedure. In recent years, more and more parents have opted to leave their male children's foreskin intact.
"It's a pretty common question for both first-time and more experienced parents," said Dr. Poj Lysouvakon of the University of Chicago Hospitals. "Many have heard it's painful for babies, and some men who were circumcised as infants say they feel they were assaulted or violated. As a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which no longer recommends routine neonatal circumcision, I tell them it's a cultural issue and a personal decision."
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the number of circumcisions performed in the United States fell from 85 percent in 1965 to 57 percent in 2004. Critics say that circumcision is usually reserved only for religious regions in most other parts of the world, and Americans are beginning to realize it may not be medically justified.
Circumcision rates in recent years have significantly decreased in the western United States, where many states' Medicaid programs -- including those in California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Nevada and Montana -- have stopped paying for neonatal circumcisions. While 80 percent of infant boys in midwestern states are circumcised prior to their hospital release, only 32 percent of baby boys in western states undergo the procedure, according to the CDC.
Conventional medicine critic Mike Adams, author of "Take Back Your Health Power," said circumcision is a "cruel, painful and permanently damaging" procedure that seriously damages infant boys' sex organs.
19 comments:
It is just an unnecessary modernized ancient ritual and its symbolic meaning is castration.
Well whatever the symbolic meaning, I choose to have my son undergo the "ritual" of circumcision. These are cultural standards I choose to adhere to. Radical autonomy through beehiving. Another thing we have to thank our Jewish and Islamic brothas for. Circumcision. For reasons that don't require mention, Im grateful to my parents for making certain decisions.
I don't know about the other ladies but I prefer my man to have been circumcised. It's just a preference though.
A sword was meant to have a sheath
Problems caused by not circumcising are also "cruel, painful and permanently damaging." At least circumcision actually has some benefits. ;)
But Anon 7:12 the argument could be made the other way too, circumcision can lead to numerous complications.
G-g-g-google.
It's due to society's cultural conditioning that one is bound to think of circumcision as a must and as a mark of one's civilized nature whereas uncircumcised people are seen as truant and primitive.
G-g-g-google.
lol!
A male getting a circumcision is HYGIENIC!!!!!
It precludes cancers from STDs, and just plain filt.
As such, how some one could argue in favor of not getting 'fitted' is beyond me.
Hmm, dunno about the "damage." i was knifed and it functions just fine--or so i have been told.
I was just talking to a West African friend who grew up in London. She says they don't circumcise in the UK unless you request and pay for the procedure.
I think West Africans are generally circumcised. But among the Akan of Ghana all kings are uncircumcised by custom. The basic thought is that a king, a divine being, should be unadulterated, as it were. kzs
"radical autonomy"?
What could be less autonomous than being strapped down and having the most sensitive part of your penis cut off?
"A male getting a circumcision is HYGIENIC!!!!!"
You could bath him in lysol too. Too much "hygiene" is unhealthy (it kills our natural bacteria that keep away the worse ones). Keeping it clean is quick, easy - and FUN!
"It precludes cancers from STDs, and just plain filt."
It certainly does not "preclude" anything, except the "symphony of sensation" bestowed by a fully functioning penis.
"As such, how some one could argue in favor of not getting 'fitted' is beyond me."
Well, two thirds of the men in the world have all of their stuff, and they would do you violence rather than letting you "fit" them. The only reason circumcision is done to babies is because they can't stop it.
As to the original question, neonatal circumcision is a memeplex with a life of its own. It defies reason.
(im)perfect_black said:
"I was just talking to a West African friend who grew up in London. She says they don't circumcise in the UK unless you request and pay for the procedure."
Actually in some pre-dominantly Muslim areas it's offered as a free service due to public pressure - on the grounds of
cultural fairness and all that.
GDawg said:
"A male getting a circumcision is HYGIENIC!!!!!
It precludes cancers from STDs, and just plain filt.
As such, how some one could argue in favor of not getting 'fitted' is beyond me."
GDawg most of the world's males are uncircumcised now if circumcision "precludes cancers from STDs" then wouldn't there be a disproportionately higher rate of cancer in uncircumcised males who happen to be in the majority? And wouldn't some medical researcher out there have picked up on this and got the Plantation to re-introduce circumcision as the order of the day.
Whereas in the past it was the cultural norm, it's actually the reverse nowadays; the AMA in the US, the NHS in the UK don't consider neonatal circumcision a medical neccessity, least of all as a matter of hygiene. Same with most of Western Europe, Australia and some African countries. It's only because people have been conditioned to think so, but realistically neonatal circumcision is not a must and there is no evidence of medical benefit that outweighs the risk of harm to justify it as mandatory. WHO might use circumcision as anti-HIV propaganda for Africans, but the evidence to support that is objectionable, IMO.
...one
In most of the world where men are not circumsized, they, THE MEN, typically don't live along enough too develope cancers because of other intervening diseases such as HIV, parasites, starvation, war, etc..
In parts of the world where life is longer, we see penile cancers in men with the afforementioned lifestyles and diseases.
I wouldn't want my sons whippin' out an uncircumcised meat on a chick and having her go "what the f*ck is that??!!!"
About male circumcision,
Male circumcision is associated with a reduced risk of penile HPV infection and, in the case of men with a history of multiple sexual partners, a reduced risk of cervical cancer in their current female partners.
The idea is that schmega (yes it's a real technical term) increases the chances of having HPV, certain types of which has been implicated in cervical cancer. Since uncircumcised men may have increased amounts of schmega if they don't properly occassionally retract their foreskin and clean the area, the area tends to be more inflamed and irritated, making infection with HPV more likely.
If a man cleans himself properly, and wears condoms the chances of passing along a potentially lethal virus (ie something that may cause cervical cancer) is decreased.
I'm circumcised, although my son initially wasn't. However he developed a condition where circumcision was the best choice of care.
I think it's a personal choice and won't advocate either way, although the data does suggest some advantages for circumcised men. I also don't think there is any thing particularly "ugly" about a penis that is circumcised or not.
GDwag said,
"In most of the world where men are not circumsized, they, THE MEN, typically don't live along enough too develope cancers because of other intervening diseases such as HIV, parasites, starvation, war, etc.. "
GDawg I don't know about all that, seems there are always conflicting views within medical science. And this is what I've found:
IF I were to factor out AIDS, poverty and malaria in the life expectancy rate in uncircumcised Ugandan or Ghanaian males for example the chances of them getting penile cancer are still rare. Why? Because penile cancer is a *very rare illness* affecting 8% of men in the whole of circumcised and uncircumcised Africa. In the US its clustered with a group of other reproductive cancers that collectively constitute 0.18%(!) of cancer rates according to the Am Cancer Soc. (1996)
There is also little medical evidence to suggest that age is a factor in the development of the disease. From what I've read there have been few studies that done on penile cancer and so far the research has found that there is miniscule difference in the rate of penile cancer in circumcised and uncircumcised men. The Cancer Society has said, "The current consensus of most experts is that circumcision should not be recommended as a prevention strategy for penile cancer."
...peace
I've never seen one uncut. I think I'll pass...
@GDAWG: "In most of the world where men are not circumsized, they, THE MEN, typically don't live along enough too develope cancers because of other intervening diseases such as HIV, parasites, starvation, war, etc.."
You mean like Scandinavia, Europe, Japan?
"In parts of the world where life is longer, we see penile cancers in men with the afforementioned lifestyles and diseases."
The penile cancer rate in Denmark is less than 3/4 that of the US, and penile cancer in the US is rarer than male breast cancer.
DMG: "I think it's a personal choice"
Absolutely - a personal choice of the person on the other end of the penis. There is no urgency to circumcise.
OKay guys, here's where it's at - circumcision DOES make life's #1 enjoyment SOOO difficult!
I am an Irishman, from a Celtic culture that never circumcised - it never caused any problems, and certainly Irish people do NOT have a massive preponderance of STDs or cervical cancer, or even penile cancer. Its just that it was seen as unnecessary mutilation from thousands of years ago backwarsds in history.
Here's where it gets tricky. I have a gay partner - yes, we are "married", under British law - we both live in the UK - who is a Ghanaian, from the Asante people, formerly known as the Akan. They circumcise their boy-kids with knife-flashing regularity. To try to get him to come is a whole weekend thing - non-stop. He has no sensitivity, and cannot masturbate alone. This is as a direct result of what circumcision has done for him. Occasionally, with a few week's abstension by him, I can get him to come by "docking" him - that is using my foreskin to cover his glans, and then he can sometimes come. Otherwise, its a massive task - I sometimes dread it when he says "AND I need to come this time". Yikes. Good thing I love him, or I'd have given up a long time ago!
I am extremely hesitant to ask this because the answer may make my skin crawl but how the hell do you use your foreskin to cover his glans? How big is your foreskin? How small is his glan? Please note that I have never actually seen foreskin so that may be part of the reason for my confusion...
Post a Comment