circumcision

[Jingthing]

Bottom line -- the opposition to circumcision is overblown but there remain reasonable reasons to do it or not to do it.

[transam]

It is an archaic procedure thought up by an earth bound guy. Yes/No ?

[Arkady]

Use of the word amputated in this context is horribly loaded ...

am·pu·tate tr.v. To cut off (a projecting body part), especially by surgery [from Latin amputāre, from am- around + putāre to trim, prune]

Seems not entirely inaccurate and the Latin origin is the almost exactly the same as that of circumcise which means cut around. Penectomy is the equivalent term for surgical removal of a penis. Would it also be loaded or politically incorrect to say amputation of the penis instead? I suppose circumcise with its biblical connotations sounds more PC.

Apart from the Victorian prescription of circumcision to deal with self abuse (often in adolescents- ouch!) one of the more traditional medical arguments for circumcision before the HPV/HIV argument was to avoid phimosis where the prepuce is too tight and cannot be retracted, leading possibly to balanitis and sexual malfunction. However, in the British NHS and other medical services the doctor is now required to prescribe betamethasone cream as a non-invasive first line treatment, rather than circumcision, as in the past. Studies show that betamethasone is successful in treating phimosis in about 95% of cases. This saves significant costs, not to mention discomfort, time off studies or work and the resultant keratinized and desensitized glans. Circumcision is now only prescribed as a last resort for cases that don't respond to non-invasive treatment.

[Arkady]

It is an archaic procedure thought up by an earth bound guy. Yes/No ?

Yes, it was thought up by earth bound guys in various ancient cultures that didn't have access to steroid creams like betamethasone.

Jewish circumcision, as done with a sharpened stone, was originally not a full circumcision. They just snipped the end off an infant's what's it to ensure retractibility and reduce risk of infections that could be incurable without antibiotics. It was in the early centuries AD that the rabbis got pissed off with Jewish men trying to pass off themselves as gentiles by stretching what was left that they started to prescribe full circumcision. This was a big deal in the Greek cities of Asian Minor that had significant Jewish populations. Greeks worked out and played games naked and didn't welcome obviously circumcised Jewish men into their gyms and social groups. The rabbis wanted Jewish men to keep to their own communities.

Anyway no more from me on this. There are arguments for and against. To amputate or not to amputate. If you have an infant son, the decision is yours. Choose wisely.

[transam]

It is an archaic procedure thought up by an earth bound guy. Yes/No ?

Yes, it was thought up by earth bound guys in various ancient cultures that didn't have access to steroid creams like betamethasone.

Jewish circumcision, as done with a sharpened stone, was originally not a full circumcision. They just snipped the end off an infant's what's it to ensure retractibility and reduce risk of infections that could be incurable without antibiotics. It was in the early centuries AD that the rabbis got pissed off with Jewish men trying to pass off themselves as gentiles by stretching what was left that they started to prescribe full circumcision. This was a big deal in the Greek cities of Asian Minor that had significant Jewish populations. Greeks worked out and played games naked and didn't welcome obviously circumcised Jewish men into their gyms and social groups. The rabbis wanted Jewish men to keep to their own communities.

Anyway no more from me on this. There are arguments for and against. To amputate or not to amputate. If you have an infant son, the decision is yours. Choose wisely.

Or let the lad choose wisely. But, if a religion interferes, then what will be will be.

[sinbin]

Even in Chiang Mai when I lived there, foreigners complained that either doctors wouldn't do it or they did it differently. How? I don't know

They do it the Thai way and the rest of the world way. The Thai way is to cut the foreskin back to the penis head. A bit like removing the Aardvarks nose. The other way is to remove the skin back to the base of policemans helmet. You really have to ensure that the doctor is fully aware of which one you'd like. Good luck to the op who's having his son done. I feel the benefits out weigh the negative concerning this. My decition to get my son done was not based on religous beliefs.

[transam]

Even in Chiang Mai when I lived there, foreigners complained that either doctors wouldn't do it or they did it differently. How? I don't know

They do it the Thai way and the rest of the world way. The Thai way is to cut the foreskin back to the penis head. A bit like removing the Aardvarks nose. The other way is to remove the skin back to the base of policemans helmet. You really have to ensure that the doctor is fully aware of which one you'd like. Good luck to the op who's having his son done. I feel the benefits out weigh the negative concerning this. My decition to get my son done was not based on religous beliefs.

So what was your reason.?

[barrybankruad]

Genital mutilation of either sex is invariably due to religion, or the parents of the child having been assaulted (yes I use that word, because that is exactly what it is) having had that proceedure done to themselves. and therefore consider that two wrongs make a right.

[Ace of Pop]

No one has the right to mutilate a Child...Male or Female.

[Jingthing]

If amputation isn't loaded, mutilation certainly is! Classic hot words of anti-circumcision propaganda. In any case, be clear, male circumcision is NOT the same thing as female!

[Farma]

I remember a news report in Malaysia years ago. The doctor tasked his nurse to do the job.

Foreskin successfully removed... along with the knob.

[Garry]

I remember a news report in Malaysia years ago. The doctor tasked his nurse to do the job.

 

Foreskin successfully removed... along with the knob.

Whoa.!

Sent from my SM-T211 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[itchybum]

Genital mutilation of either sex is invariably due to religion, or the parents of the child having been assaulted (yes I use that word, because that is exactly what it is) having had that proceedure done to themselves. and therefore consider that two wrongs make a right.

Do you miss your wittle bit ?...do you hear it talking to you at night ?

[rgs2001uk]

Bottom line -- the opposition to circumcision is overblown but there remain reasonable reasons to do it or not to do it.

My opposition to it is, this is the year 2013, 2556, 1434 or whatever year you choose to use.

We dont live in the back of beyond with no running water or sanitation, hence the reason it was originally intended.

Apart from religious reasons, no one can tell me why it must be performed.

A friend of mine married a Muslim woman recently, was told he must have the snip, he refused, for some strange reason the marriage went ahead.

In this day and age it amounts to nothing more than child abuse.

[Skint]

Unless for medical reasons I see no need to take away someone's 4skin, why not let the boy decide when he is older and can make his own choice.

[transam]

Bottom line -- the opposition to circumcision is overblown but there remain reasonable reasons to do it or not to do it.

My opposition to it is, this is the year 2013, 2556, 1434 or whatever year you choose to use.

We dont live in the back of beyond with no running water or sanitation, hence the reason it was originally intended.

Apart from religious reasons, no one can tell me why it must be performed.

A friend of mine married a Muslim woman recently, was told he must have the snip, he refused, for some strange reason the marriage went ahead.

In this day and age it amounts to nothing more than child abuse.

100% agree, and it seems some folk believe in a god creator, then remove bits that their god gave them. How strange.

[Jingthing]

Use of the word "must" is loaded. We are talking about keeping the option legal for parents to CHOOSE. Also no need to bring religion into this. The medical reasons to do this, yes in this modern era, have already been mentioned. There are pros and cons medically. Again, a CHOICE for the parents.

If you don't want to circumcise your child, then don't. Doesn't give you the right to insist your way is the only way when there actually ARE good medical reasons to do the procedure.

Edited October 6, 2013 by Jingthing

[transam]

Use of the word "must" is loaded. We are talking about keeping the option legal for parents to CHOOSE. Also no need to bring religion into this. The medical reasons to do this, yes in this modern era, have already been mentioned. There are pros and cons medically. Again, a CHOICE for the parents.

Isn't it strange don't you think, that the vast majority of the male populous of our planet, eventually get to meet their maker with their todger intact ?

Must we have our ears removed in case we get ear ache, or remove everything in case we get some illness. Hmmmmmm, don't think so. Folk like yourself have been cut up cos of a religion, plain and simple and you try and defend it by some ridiculous medical theory.

[Jingthing]

Use of the word "must" is loaded. We are talking about keeping the option legal for parents to CHOOSE. Also no need to bring religion into this. The medical reasons to do this, yes in this modern era, have already been mentioned. There are pros and cons medically. Again, a CHOICE for the parents.

Isn't it strange don't you think, that the vast majority of the male populous of our planet, eventually get to meet their maker with their todger intact ?

Must we have our ears removed in case we get ear ache, or remove everything in case we get some illness. Hmmmmmm, don't think so. Folk like yourself have been cut up cos of a religion, plain and simple and you try and defend it by some ridiculous medical theory.

Don't go there dude. I am not a religious person at all. Not one bit. Nor were my parents. In my generation of American boys, the VAST MAJORITY were cut. REGARDLESS of religion. Now, it's about 50 percent in the USA of new baby boys.

Also not a medical theory. There are known facts now about the medical benefits but of course there are downsides to the option as well. Which is why it should remain a choice, not required, and not banned.

I do think parents should give this more thought than let's do it like Daddy's but really you can't MAKE parents think deep on this unless you favor overbearing laws on the matter.

Edited October 6, 2013 by Jingthing

[itchybum]

Not many girls like cheese on their hot dogs.

[rgs2001uk]

Use of the word "must" is loaded. We are talking about keeping the option legal for parents to CHOOSE. Also no need to bring religion into this. The medical reasons to do this, yes in this modern era, have already been mentioned. There are pros and cons medically. Again, a CHOICE for the parents.

If you don't want to circumcise your child, then don't. Doesn't give you the right to insist your way is the only way when there actually ARE good medical reasons to do the procedure.

when there actually ARE good medical reasons to do the procedure.

Ok, please list me off the top of your head, half a dozen reasons why it should be done.

[itchybum]

Use of the word "must" is loaded. We are talking about keeping the option legal for parents to CHOOSE. Also no need to bring religion into this. The medical reasons to do this, yes in this modern era, have already been mentioned. There are pros and cons medically. Again, a CHOICE for the parents.

Isn't it strange don't you think, that the vast majority of the male populous of our planet, eventually get to meet their maker with their todger intact ?

Must we have our ears removed in case we get ear ache, or remove everything in case we get some illness. Hmmmmmm, don't think so. Folk like yourself have been cut up cos of a religion, plain and simple and you try and defend it by some ridiculous medical theory.

God no....I mean hell no.

My old man was not religious, I am not religious.....no religion based amputations here.

If my penis was any more sensitive than it is...well...it would not be put into half the places its been put into.

[Jingthing]

If people want to be passionately against circumcision, that's fine. Just don't make it illegal.

[rgs2001uk]

If people want to be passionately against circumcision, that's fine. Just don't make it illegal.

Nice bodyswerve of the question asked in post #51.

How do you think those poor girls who are subjected to FGM feel about it?

In this day and age there is no place for it.

As an atheist "gawd" discussions dont cut it with me.

The legallity of it is another discussion I am more than welcome to have, but as of yet no one has been able to justify why it is carried out in this day and age, forget sub saharan Africa 2000 years ago.

[downtown]

Why would you want to amputate a perfectly healthy body part, unless you have a religious compulsion to do so? Let him choose for himself when he is older.

exactly

[downtown]

any parent who does to their child is selfish in the extreme. it should be the child's choice later in life, period. something so crucial and integral to the male identity should not be trifled with. almost as bad as parents who choose their children's religion (dont get me started on that sh*t)

[itchybum]

any parent who does to their child is selfish in the extreme. it should be the child's choice later in life, period. something so crucial and integral to the male identity should not be trifled with. almost as bad as parents who choose their children's religion (dont get me started on that sh*t)

I think you place too much importance on a piece of skin that you never miss....well unless you are one of those metrosexual types....crucial and integral....crikey, how many uncut knobs do you see in porn flicks ?

I rest my case.

[sinbin]

The legallity of it is another discussion I am more than welcome to have, but as of yet no one has been able to justify why it is carried out in this day and age, forget sub saharan Africa 2000 years ago.

Firstly can we stop calling this "mutilation"? Done in a correct medical facility the proper definition should be cosmetic surgery. Which is what's being refered to by the op. As for justifying this procedure then you need to ask 'The World Health Organisation' and 'UNAIDS' who

recommend circumcision as part of a comprehensive program for prevention of HIV transmission in areas with high endemic rates of HIV

If my son is going to travel the world and do the things that I think all parents expect their sons to do then I'm for prevention. And speaking as a supporter of circumcision, until you've seen both side of the story I don't think you should really comment. Me, I got surgery aged 14. At that age it came as a great embarrasement to me and only wish my father had seen good sense in getting me done as a baby.

Contrary to popular myths it has no affect on your sex life whatsoever.

Edited October 7, 2013 by sinbin

[sinbin]

No one has the right to mutilate a Child...Male or Female.

If you feel the positives outweigh the negatives, then it is justified. Only hindsight will prove you wrong and I've never heard of anyone complain in later life that they regret being done. As a parent we are there to decide, right or wrongly.

Edited October 7, 2013 by sinbin

[transam]

The legallity of it is another discussion I am more than welcome to have, but as of yet no one has been able to justify why it is carried out in this day and age, forget sub saharan Africa 2000 years ago.

Firstly can we stop calling this "mutilation"? Done in a correct medical facility the proper definition should be cosmetic surgery. Which is what's being refered to by the op. As for justify doing this procedure then you need to ask 'The World Health Organisation' and 'UNAIDS' who

recommend circumcision as part of a comprehensive program for prevention of HIV transmission in areas with high endemic rates of HIV

If my son is going to travel the world and do the things that I think all parents expect their sons to do then I'm for prevention. And speaking as a supporter of circumcision, until you've seen both side of the story I don't think you should really comment. Me, I got surgery aged 14. At that age it came as a great embarrasement to me and only wish my father had seen good sense in getting me done as a baby.

Contrary to popular myths it has no affect on your sex life whatsoever.

Perhaps the WHA is concerned about countries with lack of personal hygiene (soap) and countries with no education on transmitted diseases.

NOT, first world countries with known knowledge of risks and excellent hygiene practice. NOT archaic procedures.