Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
pogi

Circumcision

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is also difficult to push the mutilation concept because so many men have it themselves and don't look on themselves as mutilated, nor are they likely to want to look at themselves that way.  Plus parents don't want to feel guilty, they want to feel superior (which they can in protesting to stop FGM because they would never do that to their child!).  

It is an uphill battle, imo.  That is why I think pushing the positive aspects might work better. 

All good observations. 

I agree that the positive aspects are helpful.  I feel like we have done that here to some extent in explaining what the foreskin actually is and does and why it should be perceived as beneficial.  Most Americans are clueless when it comes to foreskin - it is just something dirty and gross that gets cut off for good reason.  

I agree that it is an uphill battle.  I have hope in that other developed nations are seeing the light. We are practically the last developed nation that still defends the practice.  General improved awareness helped in these other nations, and I think it can and will help in ours too...eventually.

I think the biggest battle front is the medical argument however.  If pediatricians recommended against it, I think people would start to listen.  The CDC and APA need to see the light.  Once those giants fall, I think things will change quickly.   What is bewildering to me is how all other developed nations, except ours, see all the same data but come to such vastly different medical conclusions and recommendations.  I think that doctors against circumcision and other organizations are leading the way on that front.  Hopefully we will see the recommendations updated shortly. 

Edited by pogi

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I couldn't watch once I heard that poor baby cry.

The cries get worse. They turn into shrieks and then a sound that no human should ever have cause to make.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, pogi said:

All good observations. 

I agree that the positive aspects are helpful.  I feel like we have done that here to some extent in explaining what the foreskin actually is and does and why it should be perceived as beneficial.  Most Americans are clueless when it comes to foreskin - it is just something dirty and gross that gets cut off for good reason.  

I agree that it is an uphill battle.  I have hope in that other developed nations are seeing the light. We are practically the last developed nation that still defends the practice.  General improved awareness helped in these other nations, and I think it can and will help in ours too...eventually.

I think the biggest battle front is the medical argument however.  If pediatricians recommended against it, I think people would start to listen.  The CDC and APA need to see the light.  Once those giants fall, I think things will change quickly.   What is bewildering to me is how all other developed nations, except ours, see all the same data but come to such vastly different medical conclusions and recommendations.  I think that doctors against circumcision and other organizations are leading the way on that front.  Hopefully we will see the recommendations updated shortly. 

Not to trivialize it, but just pointing out we refuse to change to metric when the advantages in doing so are massive (just think of the time teachers can save in teaching measurement skills).  We like our traditions here, especially if different than others.

Make it fashionable though....overnight change.  Forget the doctors, get celebrities.

(no, I agree doctors onside is important, but questioning doctors would come fast if a celebrity started pushing for change)

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, Calm said:

If the parents don't see it done (I didn't), they have no clue.  I remember thinking it looked painful, but so did the belly button where the umbilical cord was cut off and I think I equated the two iirc.

Above I mentioned my housemate in America who was so angry over his circumcision that he regularly fantasised about murdering the doctor who had done it to him. His sister was in our house one day when he was complaining, and she couldn't understand his rage at all. 'What's the big deal? Didn't they just slice off a little bit of extra skin, like trimming a fingernail?' She couldn't see the procedure as anything different to a manicure or having her eyebrows plucked. Nothing her brother said shifted her indifference or her insistence that he was overreacting.

I genuinely don't think that most American mums realise that they're authorising the removal of half of their sons' penile flesh ... and the one part of human sexual anatomy that is designed to make sure that intercourse isn't painful or uncomfortable for either partner. Imagine if the birth mother were required to hold her son throughout the amputation!

Edited by Hamba Tuhan

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Above I mentioned my housemate in America who was so angry over his circumcision that he regularly fantasised about murdering the doctor who had done it to him. His sister was in our house one day when he was complaining, and she couldn't understand his rage at all. 'What's the big deal? Didn't they just slice off a little bit of extra skin, like trimming a fingernail?' She couldn't see the procedure as anything different to a manicure or having her eyebrows plucked. Nothing her brother said shifted her indifference or her insistence that he was overreacting.

I genuinely don't think that most American mums realise that they're authorising the removal of half of their sons' penile flesh ... and the one part of human sexual anatomy that is designed to make sure that intercourse isn't painful or uncomfortable for either partner.

I didn't realize how much was removed until I changed the diapers of a friend's boy.  Quite surprised.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I didn't realize how much was removed until I changed the diapers of a friend's boy.  Quite surprised.

Exactly. And even then you probably didn't have an accurate picture unless you already knew that the foreskin is double what you can see, with an outer layer of actual skin and an inner layer of nerve-rich mucosa that glide effortlessly across each other once the foreskin detaches near puberty.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

....

I genuinely don't think that most American mums realise that they're authorising the removal of half of their sons' penile flesh ... and the one part of human sexual anatomy that is designed to make sure that intercourse isn't painful or uncomfortable for either partner.

2

I have always learned that when trying to convince another person of a proposition to never exaggerate. It quickly leads to distrust and once trust is lost then there is no reason for further discussion. 

You made two statements above that when heard by another man, particularly one that is circumcised, immediately sets off the alarm bells that someone is attempting to pull one over. I have played sports most of my early life and worked out often in the gym until I was almost 50, I promise you that being circumcised did not leave me half short. It is a gross exaggeration intended to astonish but leaves me so highly doubtful as to be angry. Your second statement, which I highlighted, also has zero merits. The proposition is false and misleading. In talking with my wife throughout our marriage this has never been a complaint for either of us. 

I have been dropping in to read the comments after leaving the page. The ONLY reason I make this comment is due to Calm's recent comments encouraging you to hone your message. If you continue to use these kinds of comment you lose your audience almost immediately. I think I understand what you mean to say, but the way you have stated it is just to easy to disprove and not believe. Cheers

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

If that bothers you, I’d strongly recommend you never watch a video of a baby’s circumcision...

I shouldn't have watched that! I was already having a hard time with my decision...

I honestly started crying. 

And that was with anesthesia! To think this procedure is still regularly performed in the US without anesthesia is absolutely unthinkable.  What the hell are we doing to our kids?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, pogi said:

I feel like we have done that here to some extent in explaining what the foreskin actually is and does and why it should be perceived as beneficial.

I think that things would really turn around if American women could begin to understand the impacts of foreskin removal on their own sexual experiences. I could be wrong, but it seems to me from personal interactions that as long as circumcision remains something that happens to and perhaps even impacts men, I don't think most women will care. But if women start understanding that intercourse isn't supposed to be rough or uncomfortable or require lubricant, then they might really see what's happening.

Quote

What is bewildering to me is how all other developed nations, except ours, see all the same data but come to such vastly different medical conclusions and recommendations.

It really highlights how culturally bound medicine can be.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Make it fashionable though....overnight change.  Forget the doctors, get celebrities.

I play the banjo so I don't know how much I can help out on the fashionable side of things. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, pogi said:

I shouldn't have watched that! I was already having a hard time with my decision...

I honestly started crying. 

So sorry, mate!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Calm said:

I think a campaign for “want your kid to be a stud?  Don’t circumcise!” might work. 

Then get some star sports men bragging about it (clothes on)

Or go for the direct parallel and refer to it as male genital mutilation. Or if that be too harsh, call it male genital disfigurement.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Or go for the direct parallel and refer to it as male genital mutilation. Or if that be too harsh, call it male genital disfigurement.

I just don't seeing that going very far with too many men out there circumcised and not thinking of themselves as disfigured.  They are going to fight that idea and you may end up with greater resistance to it.

I would pitch the greater pleasure, less pain aspect. I don't want to hear how bad I have it given my husband is of the shorn variety and will for the rest of my life since we intend the till death and beyond routine.  I would just like to know my daughters and their children will not be getting depressing news like .I got when hitting perimenopause of "here's how your sex like is going to be like, especially as you get older and skin becomes fragile".  Less pain, less messy, less chemicals, more fun sounds good to me.  Post menopause not so fun anymore even though I get to skip all the mood changes and the way too many paper products around.  Still annoying the ongoing quest for the perfect unscented lubricant.  

Just saying push convenience, natural convenience, healthy convenience...kind of like how the various movements for bottle and breast feeding did PR (so much less to sterilize and always on tap so to speak, the natural way...yet oh, so draining in multiple ways vs. Mom can get a solid night sleep and Dad can cover half duty or even more....but otoh oh, those diapers!  Hazemat suits for everyone.)

 Get grandmas out there telling their daughters to fight the family tradition, it is not worth it, tell young mothers their daughter in laws will thank them later.  And when the grandson gets married, mom can whisper in her new daughter in law's ear and say "some day I will be collecting on this favor I did for you many years ago, knowing some day you would be thinking of me fondly".

sleep deprivaTion...got to love it, apologize if too graphic.  I figure it is tons more tame than the condom ad I heard driving home the other night and it was only 8:30.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I have always learned that when trying to convince another person of a proposition to never exaggerate.

No exaggeration, mate. I fear you may not realise what you're missing, and it has little to do with length. The average adult male foreskin is 3 inches long (half of that skin, the other half mucosa) by five inches in circumference. That's 15 square inches (or nearly 100 square centimetres) all up. You may be more blessed than the average, but that's very close to half of all penile tissue in the average male. (Figures range from 33 per cent to 50 per cent in some of the literature.)

Regarding the role of the foreskin in reducing the possibility of discomfort in intercourse, you may want to check out two recent studies on this topic, one reported on here and one available here. Some TLDR quotes (which I hope are not too graphic!):

Quote

“It appears that women with circumcised men are twice as likely to be sexually frustrated. They experience a three-fold risk of frequent difficulties in achieving orgasm, and an eight-fold risk of feeling pain during intercourse – also known as dyspareunia.”

Circumcised men prefer it rough

There appears to be a very simple reason why circumcised men and their partners are having problems with their sex lives.

The circumcised man develops a thin layer of hard skin on his penis head, which decreases the sensitivity. This means that in order to reach an orgasm, he needs to work harder at it, and that can lead to a painful experience for the woman ...

“We’re seeing a consistent picture. Even though most circumcised men – and their women – do not have problems with their sex lives, there is a significantly larger group of circumcised men and their female partners who experience frequent problems in achieving orgasm, compared to couples where the man is not circumcised.”

In addition, there are significantly more women with circumcised men, who experience vaginal pains during intercourse or feel that their sexual needs are not met.

 

Quote

When the anatomically complete penis thrusts in the vagina, it does not slide, but rather glides on its own ‘bedding’ of movable skin ... The underlying corpus cavernosa and corpus spongiosum slide within the penile skin, while the skin juxtaposed against the vaginal wall moves very little. This sheath-within-a-sheath alignment allows penile movement, and vaginal and penile stimulation, with minimal friction or loss of secretions ...

The skin of the circumcised penis rubs against the vaginal wall, increasing friction, abrasion and the need for artificial lubrication. Because of the tight penile skin, the corona of the glans, which is configured as a one-way valve, pulls the vaginal secretions out of the vagina when the shaft is withdrawn ...

Respondents overwhelmingly concurred that the mechanics of coitus were different for the two groups of men.

I feel reasonably confident that you'll find a way to dismiss these facts and findings -- and I'm genuinely happy if none of the issues mentioned therein apply to you! -- but the alarm bells you mentioned hearing are not due to any exaggeration on my part. I find it both troubling but informative that you don't even know the extent of penile tissue removed by circumcision.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Calm said:

Given how much we use our hands and how everything is made for five digits, an argument for non-cosmetic removal could be made. 

Doubtful. In most cases, the surgery is purely for cosmetic reasons. My wife and I are friends with a couple whose daughter was born with an extra pinkie finger. At the end of her pinkie, she had an additional, final joint pointed off at a 45 degree angle. It was nothing more than a nub, but it was "perfectly healthy tissue" and it didn't affect her ability to function in any way. 

Her father was in medical school at the time, and I asked him what they were going to do. He said that it's actually a really common occurrence, only you never really run into it in adulthood because the overwhelming majority of people have it surgically removed by the age of three - they normally wait a few years so the child is larger and better able to tolerate the anesthesia involved for the surgery. 

And if a finger seems too 'important' for an example, feel free to change it out with an extra joint on a small toe, or a third nipple, or any other genetic anomaly you can think of that would routinely be corrected in childhood for purely cosmetic reasons. 

While there are obviously limits, I think parents should have a fair degree of latitude in making these kinds of decisions for their children. 

It comes down to a matter of line drawing. For me, I happen to think that circumcision falls within the acceptable range of things that parents ought to be able to decide. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So intact earlobes are a birth defect? Who knew?

I'm not the one making an argument for bodily integrity and no pain without consent. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I have always learned that when trying to convince another person of a proposition to never exaggerate. It quickly leads to distrust and once trust is lost then there is no reason for further discussion. 

You made two statements above that when heard by another man, particularly one that is circumcised, immediately sets off the alarm bells that someone is attempting to pull one over. I have played sports most of my early life and worked out often in the gym until I was almost 50, I promise you that being circumcised did not leave me half short. It is a gross exaggeration intended to astonish but leaves me so highly doubtful as to be angry. Your second statement, which I highlighted, also has zero merits. The proposition is false and misleading. In talking with my wife throughout our marriage this has never been a complaint for either of us. 

I have been dropping in to read the comments after leaving the page. The ONLY reason I make this comment is due to Calm's recent comments encouraging you to hone your message. If you continue to use these kinds of comment you lose your audience almost immediately. I think I understand what you mean to say, but the way you have stated it is just to easy to disprove and not believe. Cheers

A lot of people need some kind of lubrication in order to not have pain during intercourse.  A foreskin for the most part removes that need.  I call it lube for life.  A lot of men that are cut just assume lube is necessary for intercourse.  Some even think it is the woman's fault for not producing enough lubercation.   The fault is with them for having a modified penis. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, pogi said:

I just don't know if you are going to find an argument for or against circumcision that doesn't do this - even in the medical research.  I don't necessarily see the problem with it either, so long as it is well cited.

The difference between the movie and the article is that one was created by a bachelor of arts graduate and filmmaker, the other was peer-reviewed and published in a respected journal by a PhD ethicist and was very well cited/referenced:

I just don't see this happening at all in the paper.  The point was that most people, when comparing MGM to FGM many people compare the most extreme forms of FGM performed in the least sterile environments to less severe forms of MGM performed in the most sterile environment. The paper did not downplay FGM at all, it simply correctly pointed out that MGM is not a monolith either so when we compare the two, we who have to look at the whole picture of what is going on. 

 You are right, it is because it is not required for providers to report adverse events with circumcision.  We don't really have a good idea of how dangerous it may be... We do have actual case studies and do know that the rates of botched circumcisions may be fairly high based on anectdotal reports of pediatric urologists.  We do know that death happens, we just don't have a good idea of how often.  We don't know how frequent serious infections may occur, but they most certainly occur more freuently than UTI's in uncircumcised people.  The point is we don't really know...and THAT is an ethical problem, because without that information, informed consent - an important medical ethic - is impossible.  That alone makes it an unethical medical practice!

The fact that we are even questioning the sensitivity of the male foreskin without giving equal consideration to the female clitoral hood shows a double standard. We equally lack the same research on the clitoral hood, so why do we automatically conclude that the clitoral hood is highly sensitive and important to female sexuality and therefore unethical to remove, yet conclude that the foreskin is more dispensable when they are homologous tissue?  It don't see the same mixed research that you do.  The only ones who claim mixed results (that I have seen) are from proponents of circumcision who seem to be intentionally taking things out of context.  It is not hard to prove.  Any uncircumcised male can tell you that the foreskin is more sensitive than the glans or underlying tissue.  Even circumcised males will feel more sensitivity on the line where the foreskin connects and was excised.   How that converts to s*xual pleasure is equally subjective in females.  So, why should we assume that the female foreskin (clitoral hood) is more important for sexuality than the male foreskin?  This seems untenable. 

It is still more tissue removed in males than females - way more. I flat out reject the WHO report.  How can they say that there is "minimal consequence" while simultaneously admitting that the data is extremely limited?  Is losing your penis from a botched circumcision a minimal consequence?  Is death from infection a minimal consequence?  We know these things happen, we just don't know how often, which is an ethical problem when it comes to informed consent. 

To assume that the female foreskin is more important than the male foreskin without any evidence is equally problematic.   We know they are homologous tissues that can be erogenously stimulated in both sexes, so why should we assume they are that different in terms of s*xuality?  We know that people can receive s*xual pleasure with or without it in both s*xes, so what evidence gives us the right to privilege and place the female foreskin on a pedestal while placing the male foreskin on the chopping block?

I can't respond to everything right now...

I'm also a slow poster.....more like glacial at times. This will likely be inadequate in responding to the points you've already made due to time constraints. But I really appreciate what Calm has mentioned about how male circumcision needs to stand alone as an argument. Part of the gender bias you mention to is likely due to the fact that in the US and likely most other cultures that practice male circumsion, female circumcision has always been a generally rare practice. There's a reason people could repackage labioplasty to sell it as a form of plastic surgery for women with low self-esteem about their genitals than as a a form of genital cutting. We don't have a sense of baggage or immediate concern around female genital cutting. 

If you want to compare....what may be more helpful is to compare approaches for fighting FGM in cultures where it is expected and learn from those, to discuss our own battles. Outright bans prior often led to a 2nd generation pushback and return to the practice. Working within the cultural context has been imperative to chipping at the practice and stopping it from happening. It is a lot slower, but it is also more effective long term. comparing practices that most people in the US  see as barbaric to a practice most people who grew up in the US find normative or had done to themselves is likely not going to work. Talking about the most extreme practices of MGM that don't occur here but in far away places won't work. The habits you mentioned with the most dangerous results entail unsafe methodology that most people in the US wouldn't have. Though the tissue removed may be more comparative, anatomically to FGM type 1's....it would still be within the realm a MGM's, the worst case scenarios when talking about circumcisions. It's in essence MGM's type 3's

Picture this from the battle against FGM's....if you went into a culture where type 1's are prevalent and type 3's are unheard of but you're giving information and facts that are largely true for 3's, the information is likely going to be dismissed or ignored, because it doesn't apply to them. They can stay on the moral high ground and say "well thank heavens that we've never done something so barbaric and harmful to our children...." And they'd generally be right. They didn't sew their daughter's vulva shut. They just did (to them) a non-invasive clip that for many of them likely had few effects that they're aware of. So sure it was painful, but avoiding pain in many cultures doesn't fly the same way it does for a number of western cultures. Translated to the US, pointing out to "true" forms of genital mutilation from an international perspective where most of the dangers apply to adults/post adolescence and more tied to the method/who is doing the cutting won't work. They can comfortably maintain a difference between them and said practices by pointing out that the way it's done is not the same thing...and "thank heavens we use medical professionals and methods that make the process overall safe." And they'd generally be right.

Also i know that you flat out reject the research by WHO....but it's on fairly measily grounds, IMO, and for others who don't share your discomfort and pain about a more coerced choice for their child's circumcisions that capacity to reject would happen for the research article you gave me. Remember I don't actually want circumcision for my family. I don't need to be convinced that It's unnecessary. But I'm not convinced by the research you gave for this conclusion.*  And if i'm not convinced, people who are more invested in male circumcision (They have it done, want it done for their children, or already chose to have it done for their sons) are likely not going to be persuaded by it either. 

 

One last thing:
 

Quote

 

Any uncircumcised male can tell you that the foreskin is more sensitive than the glans or underlying tissue.  Even circumcised males will feel more sensitivity on the line where the foreskin connects and was excised.   How that converts to s*xual pleasure is equally subjective in females.  So, why should we assume that the female foreskin (clitoral hood) is more important for sexuality than the male foreskin?  This seems untenable. 

To assume that the female foreskin is more important than the male foreskin without any evidence is equally problematic.   We know they are homologous tissues that can be erogenously stimulated in both sexes, so why should we assume they are that different in terms of s*xuality?  We know that people can receive s*xual pleasure with or without it in both s*xes, so what evidence gives us the right to privilege and place the female foreskin on a pedestal while placing the male foreskin on the chopping block?

 

On the bold, my response was just a simple summary of what my uncircumcised husband responded when I asked what was more sensitive to him. He, as "any uncircumcised male" per se, found it humorous to assume the foreskin was. 

On s*exual pleasure...that is literally my bread and butter. I deal with s*xual pain all the time...for women. I can't remember the last time a man talked about his own sexual pain from any form of appropriate stimulus (as in, their partner or an unrelated accident didn't do something that caused sexual pain or damage to function). I've never seen/heard a difference from them on their sexual experiences that points to me to the belief that circumcised males are at a distinct disadvantage from the uncircumcised males. You are right that there is a heavy degree of personal perception to pleasure for both sexes. BUT I do find it problematic to directly parallel s*xual function and response. The systems started the same, but certainly didn't end the same and the experiences, capacities, concerns, etc can vary drastically due to this. This is my assessment from my job, without going into graphic detail....but I have never met the male equivalent of the woman in the documentary who had a childhood hoodectomy (I believe) and still has extreme sensitivity problems during s*x. And I largely suspect has had to do with the structural differences (again the cl*toris is far more sensitive than the glans and direct stimulation of it for more than short bursts while ar*used is more painful than pleasureable. The female foreskin facillitates indirect touch that is far more pleasurable....this does not follow exactly with males and stimulation of the glans directly, with or without foreskin). I would expect, working in a population with a large amount of men and women who's problems often intermix with medical botches, to have at least met one man who had some complaint about their circumcision at this point. But I haven't. again, this doesn't mean it doesn't exist....but it does bode that it's fairly rare with the way its practiced in the US ...and if you're going to convince someone that this may rob them of s*xual  experiences unknown, this ain't going to work. They will be able to point to every man in their recent family lineage and male friends who are circumcised that are fine and will be unable to find 1 male who's got a serious problem. I can't think of 1, and I talk in graphic detail about people's more embarrassing or painful experiences around s*exuality all the time. It will feel like a fictive problem or a remote one tied to unsterile or more extreme methods to circumcision. I'm not saying that this is true...but they won't have easily available proof that they're basically a little  s*xual crippled. And to infer such would likely be a little offensive to them.

 

 Again, I strongly agree with how Calm mentioned approaching slower cultural shifts to reduce the common practice. 

*BTW, my problem with the article you gave me, wasn't that it wasn't researched, but that it led out with bias...that was the similarity I saw. All research is at least somewhat biased, I expect that. But leading out to prove/bolster an argument is problematic to me when trying to prove the inherent harm of said practice.   

 

With luv,

BD

Edited by BlueDreams
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

I'm also a slow poster.....more like glacial at times. This will likely be inadequate in responding to the points you've already made due to time constraints. But I really appreciate what Calm has mentioned about how male circumcision needs to stand alone as an argument. Part of the gender bias you mention to is likely due to the fact that in the US and likely most other cultures that practice male circumsion, female circumcision has always been a generally rare practice. There's a reason people could repackage labioplasty to sell it as a form of plastic surgery for women with low self-esteem about their genitals than as a a form of genital cutting. We don't have a sense of baggage or immediate concern around female genital cutting. 

If you want to compare....what may be more helpful is to compare approaches for fighting FGM in cultures where it is expected and learn from those, to discuss our own battles. Outright bans prior often led to a 2nd generation pushback and return to the practice. Working within the cultural context has been imperative to chipping at the practice and stopping it from happening. It is a lot slower, but it is also more effective long term. comparing practices that most people in the US  see as barbaric to a practice most people who grew up in the US find normative or had done to themselves is likely not going to work. Talking about the most extreme practices of MGM that don't occur here but in far away places won't work. The habits you mentioned with the most dangerous results entail unsafe methodology that most people in the US wouldn't have. Though the tissue removed may be more comparative, anatomically to FGM type 1's....it would still be within the realm a MGM's, the worst case scenarios when talking about circumcisions. It's in essence MGM's type 3's

Picture this from the battle against FGM's....if you went into a culture where type 1's are prevalent and type 3's are unheard of but you're giving information and facts that are largely true for 3's, the information is likely going to be dismissed or ignored, because it doesn't apply to them. They can stay on the moral high ground and say "well thank heavens that we've never done something so barbaric and harmful to our children...." And they'd generally be right. They didn't sew their daughter's vulva shut. They just did (to them) a non-invasive clip that for many of them likely had few effects that they're aware of. So sure it was painful, but avoiding pain in many cultures doesn't fly the same way it does for a number of western cultures. Translated to the US, pointing out to "true" forms of genital mutilation from an international perspective where most of the dangers apply to adults/post adolescence and more tied to the method/who is doing the cutting won't work. They can comfortably maintain a difference between them and said practices by pointing out that the way it's done is not the same thing...and "thank heavens we use medical professionals and methods that make the process overall safe." And they'd generally be right.

Also i know that you flat out reject the research by WHO....but it's on fairly measily grounds, IMO, and for others who don't share your discomfort and pain about a more coerced choice for their child's circumcisions that capacity to reject would happen for the research article you gave me. Remember I don't actually want circumcision for my family. I don't need to be convinced that It's unnecessary. But I'm not convinced by the research you gave for this conclusion.*  And if i'm not convinced, people who are more invested in male circumcision (They have it done, want it done for their children, or already chose to have it done for their sons) are likely not going to be persuaded by it either. 

 

One last thing:
 

On the bold, my response was just a simple summary of what my uncircumcised husband responded when I asked what was more sensitive to him. He, as "any uncircumcised male" per se, found it humorous to assume the foreskin was. 

On s*exual pleasure...that is literally my bread and butter. I deal with s*xual pain all the time...for women. I can't remember the last time a man talked about his own sexual pain from any form of appropriate stimulus (as in, their partner or an unrelated accident didn't do something that caused sexual pain or damage to function). I've never seen/heard a difference from them on their sexual experiences that points to me to the belief that circumcised males are at a distinct disadvantage from the uncircumcised males. You are right that there is a heavy degree of personal perception to pleasure for both sexes. BUT I do find it problematic to directly parallel s*xual function and response. The systems started the same, but certainly didn't end the same and the experiences, capacities, concerns, etc can vary drastically due to this. This is my assessment from my job, without going into graphic detail....but I have never met the male equivalent of the woman in the documentary who had a childhood hoodectomy (I believe) and still has extreme sensitivity problems during s*x. And I largely suspect has had to do with the structural differences (again the cl*toris is far more sensitive than the glans and direct stimulation of it for more than short bursts while ar*used is more painful than pleasureable. The female foreskin facillitates indirect touch that is far more pleasurable....this does not follow exactly with males and stimulation of the glans directly, with or without foreskin). I would expect, working in a population with a large amount of men and women who's problems often intermix with medical botches, to have at least met one man who had some complaint about their circumcision at this point. But I haven't. again, this doesn't mean it doesn't exist....but it does bode that it's fairly rare with the way its practiced in the US ...and if you're going to convince someone that this may rob them of s*xual  experiences unknown, this ain't going to work. They will be able to point to every man in their recent family lineage and male friends who are circumcised that are fine and will be unable to find 1 male who's got a serious problem. I can't think of 1, and I talk in graphic detail about people's more embarrassing or painful experiences around s*exuality all the time. It will feel like a fictive problem or a remote one tied to unsterile or more extreme methods to circumcision. I'm not saying that this is true...but they won't have easily available proof that they're basically a little  s*xual crippled. And to infer such would likely be a little offensive to them.

 

 Again, I strongly agree with how Calm mentioned approaching slower cultural shifts to reduce the common practice. 

*BTW, my problem with the article you gave me, wasn't that it wasn't researched, but that it led out with bias...that was the similarity I saw. All research is at least somewhat biased, I expect that. But leading out to prove/bolster an argument is problematic to me when trying to prove the inherent harm of said practice.   

 

With luv,

BD

The men you described as being circumcised and not really noticing the difference, is because they don't know life before the circumcision. They have no idea what they've missed. And after reading Calm's post, I'm pretty po'd that we women have to suffer the consequences as well. Hadn't looked at it like that until Calm's post. Especially now that I'm a post menopausal woman, sex can be very painful. I'm a lucky woman though, I've never used the pill or had an IUD, my husband has been gracious enough to wear a condom when we're not trying to conceive. So lubricants on the condom helped, but being postmenopausal, not anymore. And the circumcised males having to go longer than uncircumcised does produce more pain/friction on the women, and on them as well. :(

IMO, I think they began circumcision on males/females from the beginning of time, because they thought sexual pleasure was evil. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, california boy said:

A lot of people need some kind of lubrication in order to not have pain during intercourse.  A foreskin for the most part removes that need.  I call it lube for life.  A lot of men that are cut just assume lube is necessary for intercourse.  Some even think it is the woman's fault for not producing enough lubercation.   The fault is with them for having a modified penis. 

LOL, this just gets more and more weird the further this goes on. You are speaking in absolutes without any supporting facts. First, we have never used lubrication of any kind. I doubt we are an exception. Second, if there is a lubrication problem then get a solution. I don't understand your desire to make men out to be individuals that blame their spouse for a lubrication problem. Third, do you have any evidence that males who are not circumcised never use lubrication?  If not, then retract the fallacy you are running with above. 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I feel reasonably confident that you'll find a way to dismiss these facts and findings -- and I'm genuinely happy if none of the issues mentioned therein apply to you! -- but the alarm bells you mentioned hearing are not due to any exaggeration on my part. I find it both troubling but informative that you don't even know the extent of penile tissue removed by circumcision.

 

LOL - and why might I think that regardless of what anyone might say contrary to your opinion you will continue to be an activist for your position. Pot, meet Kettle. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

I'm also a slow poster.....more like glacial at times. This will likely be inadequate in responding to the points you've already made due to time constraints. But I really appreciate what Calm has mentioned about how male circumcision needs to stand alone as an argument. Part of the gender bias you mention to is likely due to the fact that in the US and likely most other cultures that practice male circumsion, female circumcision has always been a generally rare practice. There's a reason people could repackage labioplasty to sell it as a form of plastic surgery for women with low self-esteem about their genitals than as a a form of genital cutting. We don't have a sense of baggage or immediate concern around female genital cutting. 

If you want to compare....what may be more helpful is to compare approaches for fighting FGM in cultures where it is expected and learn from those, to discuss our own battles. Outright bans prior often led to a 2nd generation pushback and return to the practice. Working within the cultural context has been imperative to chipping at the practice and stopping it from happening. It is a lot slower, but it is also more effective long term. comparing practices that most people in the US  see as barbaric to a practice most people who grew up in the US find normative or had done to themselves is likely not going to work. Talking about the most extreme practices of MGM that don't occur here but in far away places won't work. The habits you mentioned with the most dangerous results entail unsafe methodology that most people in the US wouldn't have. Though the tissue removed may be more comparative, anatomically to FGM type 1's....it would still be within the realm a MGM's, the worst case scenarios when talking about circumcisions. It's in essence MGM's type 3's

Picture this from the battle against FGM's....if you went into a culture where type 1's are prevalent and type 3's are unheard of but you're giving information and facts that are largely true for 3's, the information is likely going to be dismissed or ignored, because it doesn't apply to them. They can stay on the moral high ground and say "well thank heavens that we've never done something so barbaric and harmful to our children...." And they'd generally be right. They didn't sew their daughter's vulva shut. They just did (to them) a non-invasive clip that for many of them likely had few effects that they're aware of. So sure it was painful, but avoiding pain in many cultures doesn't fly the same way it does for a number of western cultures. Translated to the US, pointing out to "true" forms of genital mutilation from an international perspective where most of the dangers apply to adults/post adolescence and more tied to the method/who is doing the cutting won't work. They can comfortably maintain a difference between them and said practices by pointing out that the way it's done is not the same thing...and "thank heavens we use medical professionals and methods that make the process overall safe." And they'd generally be right.

Also i know that you flat out reject the research by WHO....but it's on fairly measily grounds, IMO, and for others who don't share your discomfort and pain about a more coerced choice for their child's circumcisions that capacity to reject would happen for the research article you gave me. Remember I don't actually want circumcision for my family. I don't need to be convinced that It's unnecessary. But I'm not convinced by the research you gave for this conclusion.*  And if i'm not convinced, people who are more invested in male circumcision (They have it done, want it done for their children, or already chose to have it done for their sons) are likely not going to be persuaded by it either. 

 

One last thing:
 

On the bold, my response was just a simple summary of what my uncircumcised husband responded when I asked what was more sensitive to him. He, as "any uncircumcised male" per se, found it humorous to assume the foreskin was. 

On s*exual pleasure...that is literally my bread and butter. I deal with s*xual pain all the time...for women. I can't remember the last time a man talked about his own sexual pain from any form of appropriate stimulus (as in, their partner or an unrelated accident didn't do something that caused sexual pain or damage to function). I've never seen/heard a difference from them on their sexual experiences that points to me to the belief that circumcised males are at a distinct disadvantage from the uncircumcised males. You are right that there is a heavy degree of personal perception to pleasure for both sexes. BUT I do find it problematic to directly parallel s*xual function and response. The systems started the same, but certainly didn't end the same and the experiences, capacities, concerns, etc can vary drastically due to this. This is my assessment from my job, without going into graphic detail....but I have never met the male equivalent of the woman in the documentary who had a childhood hoodectomy (I believe) and still has extreme sensitivity problems during s*x. And I largely suspect has had to do with the structural differences (again the cl*toris is far more sensitive than the glans and direct stimulation of it for more than short bursts while ar*used is more painful than pleasureable. The female foreskin facillitates indirect touch that is far more pleasurable....this does not follow exactly with males and stimulation of the glans directly, with or without foreskin). I would expect, working in a population with a large amount of men and women who's problems often intermix with medical botches, to have at least met one man who had some complaint about their circumcision at this point. But I haven't. again, this doesn't mean it doesn't exist....but it does bode that it's fairly rare with the way its practiced in the US ...and if you're going to convince someone that this may rob them of s*xual  experiences unknown, this ain't going to work. They will be able to point to every man in their recent family lineage and male friends who are circumcised that are fine and will be unable to find 1 male who's got a serious problem. I can't think of 1, and I talk in graphic detail about people's more embarrassing or painful experiences around s*exuality all the time. It will feel like a fictive problem or a remote one tied to unsterile or more extreme methods to circumcision. I'm not saying that this is true...but they won't have easily available proof that they're basically a little  s*xual crippled. And to infer such would likely be a little offensive to them.

 

 Again, I strongly agree with how Calm mentioned approaching slower cultural shifts to reduce the common practice. 

*BTW, my problem with the article you gave me, wasn't that it wasn't researched, but that it led out with bias...that was the similarity I saw. All research is at least somewhat biased, I expect that. But leading out to prove/bolster an argument is problematic to me when trying to prove the inherent harm of said practice.   

 

With luv,

BD

Thank you a thousand times. My point all along is the exaggeration and bias of everything that has been put up in this thread to support non-circumcision. My position is that it does not matter - do what you think is best for your sons. I just don't get excited one way or another about which choice is taken. I am firmly neutral. Unfortunately, not bowing down to this uncircumcised golden calf has earned me the slap down of being too stupid, too unenlightened to know what is good for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

LOL, this just gets more and more weird the further this goes on. You are speaking in absolutes without any supporting facts. First, we have never used lubrication of any kind. I doubt we are an exception. Second, if there is a lubrication problem then get a solution. I don't understand your desire to make men out to be individuals that blame their spouse for a lubrication problem. Third, do you have any evidence that males who are not circumcised never use lubrication?  If not, then retract the fallacy you are running with above. 

To me, your comments are weird. Why are you so against this even being something that might be true? Is it the religous bend? And if your wife is post menopausal, I hope she's not just suffering and not telling you. But that's none of my business.

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The men you described as being circumcised and not really noticing the difference, is because they don't know life before the circumcision. They have no idea what they've missed.

BlueDreams can answer for herself, but maybe they don't know what they are missing because they really aren't missing out on much at all.

Consider the following study: https://www.jurology.com/article/S0022-5347(15)05535-4/abstract

It finds that the foreskin was most sensitive to stimulation by touch (fair enough). However, it goes on to clarify that this doesn’t mean that your experience of pleasure during sex is any different whether you’re circumcised or uncircumcised. 

 

Quote

And after reading Calm's post, I'm pretty po'd that we women have to suffer the consequences as well.

There was a study done in Mexico involving women whose partners where scheduled to be circumcised. They took measurements both before the procedure and two months after. The results?

"There were no statistically significant differences on general sexual satisfaction, pain during vaginal penetration, desire, vaginal orgasm." (link)

 

Edited by Amulek
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Amulek said:

BlueDreams can answer for herself, but maybe they don't know what they are missing because they really aren't missing out on much at all.

Consider the following study: https://www.jurology.com/article/S0022-5347(15)05535-4/abstract

It finds that the foreskin was most sensitive to stimulation by touch (fair enough). However, it goes on to clarify that this doesn’t mean that your experience of pleasure during sex is any different whether you’re circumcised or uncircumcised. 

 

There was a study done in Mexico involving women whose partners where scheduled to be circumcised. They took measurements both before the procedure and two months after. The results?

"There were no statistically significant differences on general sexual satisfaction, pain during vaginal penetration, desire, vaginal orgasm." (link)

 

That link's article/test result is so poorly written!

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×