US: Florida boy's circumcision spurs lengthy legal battle, protests

[James Yayo]

So let me say I voluntarily had myself cut when I was 19. I'd thought about it and researched it for several years up to actually having it done, so it was not a casual matter. Best decision of my youth and I've been congratulating myself ever since.

No pain or discomfort in it whatsoever for me. It is to me superior in every way to being uncut. People who want to make laws against voluntary circumcision and circumcision as a practice or choice need themselves to be restrained by the laws of every civilized society. They shouldn't be so cheesy about it either.

Interesting and pretty much what I suspected. It is easy to claim that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure, because very few people have experienced it both ways. As far as I can tell, it is nothing but a myth for most men.

Strange comment.

I think most of the people who had it done as infants may have some sort of defense-mechanism where they feel they have to defend it.

Fair enough, that is human psychology.

The bare facts of the matter are that the most sensitive and sexually receptive parts of the body have been amputated, so they can never experience (or genuinely understand) that pleasure.

It would be akin to taking away the receptors that view the entire light-spectrum at birth, so they can only see the red and yellow parts of a rainbow, they can still enjoy a rainbow, but not nearly as much as a person with the full set of receptors that recieves 7 colours instead of 2.

The prepuce is primary, erogenous tissue necessary for normal sexual function. The complex interaction between the sensitivity of the corpuscular receptor-deficient glans penis and the corpuscular receptor-rich ridged band of the male prepuce is required for normal copulatory behavior. ~Dr. Christopher Cold, M.D. and Dr. John Taylor, M.D.

An interesting read, actually, but quite pro-nature, which some circumcised people may not like.

Edited January 21, 2015 by James Yayo

[Ulysses G.]

So let me say I voluntarily had myself cut when I was 19. I'd thought about it and researched it for several years up to actually having it done, so it was not a casual matter. Best decision of my youth and I've been congratulating myself ever since.

No pain or discomfort in it whatsoever for me. It is to me superior in every way to being uncut. People who want to make laws against voluntary circumcision and circumcision as a practice or choice need themselves to be restrained by the laws of every civilized society. They shouldn't be so cheesy about it either.

Interesting and pretty much what I suspected. It is easy to claim that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure, because very few people have experienced it both ways. As far as I can tell, it is nothing but a myth for most men.

Strange comment.

I think most of the people who had it done as infants may have some sort of defense-mechanism where they feel they have to defend it.

A lot stranger to ignore someone who has actually had it done at an age where he could judge the effects. You seem very committed to dismissing any facts that contradict your point of view.

[James Yayo]

A lot stranger to ignore someone who has actually had it done at an age where he could judge the effects. You seem very committed to dismissing any facts that contradict your point of view.

Well firstly, one anonymous person posting whatever they want on an anonymous chat-board isn't fact, in any way.

I or anyone else could sign up and say that I had it done it completely ruined blah blah balh, or that I had it done and it was the greatest thing I ever did.

You do understand this about anonymous web-forums, right?

The one person I know in real life that had it done in his early 20's said that it ruined the sensations,, completely robbed him of them, the only place he had sensations left were the numbed head, and a small bit underneath where there was still some of the corpuscular receptors left.

Of course I could make that up, which I'm not, it is also basic common sense from looking at it objectively.

Remove the corpuscular receptors, the most sexually sensitive part of the body, numb the head, what do you think is going to happen?

The corpuscular receptors also exist on one's finger tips. If your fingertips are peeled off, do you think you will be more receptive to the sensation of touch? Of course not. You will be robbed of it forever. One could run their fingers over felt, and feel it, but are they going to feel it like someone that has their full finger tips and corpuscular receptors naturally in place? Of course not. That is why we have them and what they are designed to do, be pleasurably stimulated by the most fine of stimulation.

Edited January 21, 2015 by James Yayo

[ggold]

So let me say I voluntarily had myself cut when I was 19. I'd thought about it and researched it for several years up to actually having it done, so it was not a casual matter. Best decision of my youth and I've been congratulating myself ever since.

No pain or discomfort in it whatsoever for me. It is to me superior in every way to being uncut. People who want to make laws against voluntary circumcision and circumcision as a practice or choice need themselves to be restrained by the laws of every civilized society. They shouldn't be so cheesy about it either.

Interesting and pretty much what I suspected. It is easy to claim that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure, because very few people have experienced it both ways. As far as I can tell, it is nothing but a myth for most men.

Strange comment.

I think most of the people who had it done as infants may have some sort of defense-mechanism where they feel they have to defend it.

Fair enough, that is human psychology.

The bare facts of the matter are that the most sensitive and sexually receptive parts of the body have been amputated, so they can never experience (or genuinely understand) that pleasure.

It would be akin to taking away the receptors that view the entire light-spectrum at birth, so they can only see the red and yellow parts of a rainbow, they can still enjoy a rainbow, but not nearly as much as a person with the full set of receptors that recieves 7 colours instead of 2.

The prepuce is primary, erogenous tissue necessary for normal sexual function. The complex interaction between the sensitivity of the corpuscular receptor-deficient glans penis and the corpuscular receptor-rich ridged band of the male prepuce is required for normal copulatory behavior. ~Dr. Christopher Cold, M.D. and Dr. John Taylor, M.D.

An interesting read, actually, but quite pro-nature, which some circumcised people may not like.

I think most of the people who had it done as infants may have some sort of defense-mechanism where they feel they have to defend it.

I think some of those people who have not had it done as infants may have some sort of defence mechanism where they feel they have to defend not being cut!

Edited January 21, 2015 by ggold

[Ulysses G.]

I think some of those people who have not had it done as infants may have some sort of defence mechanism where they feel they have to defend not being cut!

At least one of them for sure.

[Scott]

I will send a message to the guy I know who had it done as an adult and ask him about the 'before' and 'after' stuff. I haven't been in contact with him for quite a while, but I'll give a link to this thread (he's never been to Thailand), but I am sure he will find it a strange question after all these years!

[James Yayo]

I think some of those people who have not had it done as infants may have some sort of defence mechanism where they feel they have to defend not being cut!

Because getting it done would be so difficult? We could head off to the first hospital we see and have it done before nighttime if we wanted to.

But yet, we don't.

Edited January 21, 2015 by James Yayo

[ggold]

I think some of those people who have not had it done as infants may have some sort of defence mechanism where they feel they have to defend not being cut!

Because getting it done would be so difficult? We could head off to the first hospital we see and have it done before nighttime if we wanted to.

But yet, we don't.

If you do, or if you don't it really isn't any skin off my................................ ! I am glad it gives you a sense of superiority being a real man with a foreskin even!

normal men? as you put it!

[Donnie Brasco]

I sympathize with the circumcisees.

The benefits of circumcision are evident after a 10 mile jog or a bus trip home with one's favourite cheerleader after a victorious away game unless she has already declared she doesn't mind a little salt with her charcuterie as long as you don't mind a little salt on your seafood.

Sadly, however, many "uncut" guys on this board have already blocked memories of the lessor known medical procedures the majority of us had to endure once we had decided to, um, socialize for any length of time here in Thailand.

I refer to the equally painful (gasp) penis shortening and (shudder) girth reduction procedures for which Thailand remains a medical tourism Mecca (so to sapeak).

These remain in stark contrast to the almost painless but equally devastating tesTACKLE-ectomy which can be done at home as one's partner aquatints oneself to the subtleties and intricacies of Toy Cowchah.

[Briggsy]

I am sorry, that last post has mystified me. What is the poster going on about? Perhaps someone can enlighten me?

[Jingthing]

I am sorry, that last post has mystified me. What is the poster going on about? Perhaps someone can enlighten me?

Cough .. cough ... don't bother ...

[MikeOboe57]

Debunking the myth of medical necessity for "decapitation".

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement0.html

[Jingthing]

Debunking the myth of medical necessity for "decapitation".

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement0.html

What are you on about?

Nobody is arguing medical necessity for infants.

There are pros and cons to doing it, that's all.

That's a matter for parents to decide.

Sure -- strong pro and con cases can be made for either CHOICE, so yes the controversy will continue, but so will the cutting.

Also there is the factor of heterosexual HIV prevention in high risk countries.

Also the cases where it is indicated later in life to solve problems.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Jingthing

[I Like Thai]

I'm American. Like I said the vast majority (over 90 percent) of American boys of my generation were circumcised because that was the standard medical practice then. Nothing to do with religion except for a very small segment of the population. Now it is being questioned more, Latinos generally don't cut for cultural reasons, but still quite widespread, and still perfectly OK to do according to the U.S. medical authorities. It is not considered mutilation. It's considered an optional medical procedure for babies and sometimes a medically required one for older males. There are pros and cons of cutting, yes there is some surgical risk but overall a very low risk procedure. The argument that if there is any risk it should never be done is bogus considering there are documented benefits to doing it.

The American medical establishment policy here is relevant to this thread as it's a story about a case of circumcision controversy there.

To wit:

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/2011-11-15-ama-adopts-new-policies.page

Stop Legal Prohibition of Male Circumcision

Ballot and other legal initiatives have recently been proposed in California that would ban infant male circumcision and penalize any physician who performed it. The AMA voted today to oppose any attempt to legally prohibit male infant circumcision.

"There is strong evidence documenting the health benefits of male circumcision, and it is a low-risk procedure, said Peter W. Carmel, M.D., AMA president. "Today the AMA again made it clear that it will oppose any attempts to intrude into legitimate medical practice and the informed choices of patients."

Is that the same American medical establishment who decided that Lobotomies were a valid procedure for people with mental illness ?

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/03/21/the-surprising-history-of-the-lobotomy/

In 1936, psychiatrist Walter Freeman and another neurosurgeon performed the first U.S. prefrontal lobotomy on a Kansas housewife. (Freeman renamed it “lobotomy.”)

Freeman believed that an overload of emotions led to mental illness and “that cutting certain nerves in the brain could eliminate excess emotion and stabilize a personality,” according to a National Public Radio article.

He wanted to find a more efficient way to perform the procedure without drilling into a person’s head like Moniz did. So he created the 10-minute transorbital lobotomy (known as the “ice-pick” lobotomy), which was first performed at his Washington, D.C. office on January 17, 1946.

(Freeman would go on to perform about 2,500 lobotomies. Known as a showman, he once performed 25 lobotomies in one day. To shock his audiences, he also liked to insert picks in both eyes simultaneously.)

[MikeOboe57]

Debunking the myth of medical necessity for "decapitation".

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement0.html

What are you on about?

Nobody is arguing medical necessity for infants.

There are pros and cons to doing it, that's all.

That's a matter for parents to decide.

Sure -- strong pro and con cases can be made for either CHOICE, so yes the controversy will continue, but so will the cutting.

Also there is the factor of heterosexual HIV prevention in high risk countries.

Also the cases where it is indicated later in life to solve problems.

You should read the statement.

If there is no medical necessity then it is either religious tradition, some fashion or whatever and cannot be justified especially when forced upon children that cannot express their own will.

Here is a quote from the above link re HIV and STD:

The medical evidence does not support the practice of neonatal circumcision to prevent STDs.

[...]“behavioral factors are far more important risk factors for acquisition of HIV and other sexually transmissible diseases than circumcision status, and circumcision cannot be responsibly viewed as “protecting” against such infections.”[...]

[...] there is insufficient evidence to recommend circumcision to prevent HIV infection.[...]

[...] it is the percentage of female sex workers in the female population, not the incidence of male circumcision, that determines the level of HIV infection. [...]

“The world community must cautiously review and carefully consider the long-term consequences of mass circumcision campaigns, from the risk of increasing deaths and infections to human rights violations. In the rush to save lives, many may instead be lost and human rights trampled in the stampede. Circumcision is not the panacea the world has been waiting for in the battle to stem the HIV crisis.

[HerbalEd]

"I couldn't speak when I was cut, but I can speak now," said Thomas Frederiksen, a 39-year-old machinist who traveled from Orlando to protest, wearing a red beret and "I (Heart) My Foreskin" T-shirt and speaking breathlessly about the issue.

I'm betting he's Gay!

I bet you bet a lot of guys are gay. And even if he is, who cares? Or are you just showing us what a great gay detector you are?

Edited January 21, 2015 by HerbalEd

[HerbalEd]

Beyond cruel. Not for the trauma now, but for irreversably robbing them of a full and proper sex life.

I don't know how my sex life could be any more full and proper than it is now with no foreskin.

Imagine your fingers with your finger tips removed.

The sensors in your finger tips are the same sensors as in a male's foreskin.

You could still pick things up, and enjoy picking them up, but the sensation has been robbed and diminished forever (in two different places with circumcision- the most sensitive part of the body has been removed, and the sensation from likely the second, has been numbed forever)

If the operation leaves a small trace of foreskin, this is where circumcised men say they get the most stimulation and sensation from.

You so don't know what you're talking about. The foreskin is by no means erogenous tissue. Do you often make up "facts" to "prove" your personal opinions fantasies?

[casualbiker]

Beyond cruel. Not for the trauma now, but for irreversably robbing them of a full and proper sex life.

I don't know how my sex life could be any more full and proper than it is now with no foreskin.

Imagine your fingers with your finger tips removed.

The sensors in your finger tips are the same sensors as in a male's foreskin.

You could still pick things up, and enjoy picking them up, but the sensation has been robbed and diminished forever (in two different places with circumcision- the most sensitive part of the body has been removed, and the sensation from likely the second, has been numbed forever)

If the operation leaves a small trace of foreskin, this is where circumcised men say they get the most stimulation and sensation from.

You so don't know what you're talking about. The foreskin is by no means erogenous tissue. Do you often make up "facts" to "prove" your personal opinions fantasies?

Seems it is sensitive.

" The foreskin in sex

Structure of the foreskin

It has been known since antiquity thatthe foreskin gives pleasure, and only forgotten in the US in the last century or so.

Central to Intactivist claims about foreskin function in sex is the work ofTaylor et al., demonstrating that the foreskin itself is richly innervated with Meissner corpuscles, which are sensitive to light touch. They make the foreskin's sensitivity comparable to that of the fingertips or the lips (but probably less than that of the tip of the tongue or the eyelashes)

The ridged band now has its own website, hosted by its discoverer, Dr John Taylor."

Source : http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html

[Jingthing]

I'm American. Like I said the vast majority (over 90 percent) of American boys of my generation were circumcised because that was the standard medical practice then. Nothing to do with religion except for a very small segment of the population. Now it is being questioned more, Latinos generally don't cut for cultural reasons, but still quite widespread, and still perfectly OK to do according to the U.S. medical authorities. It is not considered mutilation. It's considered an optional medical procedure for babies and sometimes a medically required one for older males. There are pros and cons of cutting, yes there is some surgical risk but overall a very low risk procedure. The argument that if there is any risk it should never be done is bogus considering there are documented benefits to doing it.

The American medical establishment policy here is relevant to this thread as it's a story about a case of circumcision controversy there.

To wit:

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/2011-11-15-ama-adopts-new-policies.page

Stop Legal Prohibition of Male Circumcision

Ballot and other legal initiatives have recently been proposed in California that would ban infant male circumcision and penalize any physician who performed it. The AMA voted today to oppose any attempt to legally prohibit male infant circumcision.

"There is strong evidence documenting the health benefits of male circumcision, and it is a low-risk procedure, said Peter W. Carmel, M.D., AMA president. "Today the AMA again made it clear that it will oppose any attempts to intrude into legitimate medical practice and the informed choices of patients."

Is that the same American medical establishment who decided that Lobotomies were a valid procedure for people with mental illness ?

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/03/21/the-surprising-history-of-the-lobotomy/

In 1936, psychiatrist Walter Freeman and another neurosurgeon performed the first U.S. prefrontal lobotomy on a Kansas housewife. (Freeman renamed it “lobotomy.”)

Freeman believed that an overload of emotions led to mental illness and “that cutting certain nerves in the brain could eliminate excess emotion and stabilize a personality,” according to a National Public Radio article.

He wanted to find a more efficient way to perform the procedure without drilling into a person’s head like Moniz did. So he created the 10-minute transorbital lobotomy (known as the “ice-pick” lobotomy), which was first performed at his Washington, D.C. office on January 17, 1946.

(Freeman would go on to perform about 2,500 lobotomies. Known as a showman, he once performed 25 lobotomies in one day. To shock his audiences, he also liked to insert picks in both eyes simultaneously.)

Yes. That advice was adjusted with new evidence. I get it activists are trying for the same thing about infant circumcision. They have every right to try. But the medical authorities will make their decisions based on current scientific knowledge and yes of course medical ETHICS comes into play as well.

[casualbiker]

Another interesting study on sensitivity : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102

[Jingthing]

Debunking the myth of medical necessity for "decapitation".

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement0.html

What are you on about?

Nobody is arguing medical necessity for infants.

There are pros and cons to doing it, that's all.

That's a matter for parents to decide.

Sure -- strong pro and con cases can be made for either CHOICE, so yes the controversy will continue, but so will the cutting.

Also there is the factor of heterosexual HIV prevention in high risk countries.

Also the cases where it is indicated later in life to solve problems.

You should read the statement.

If there is no medical necessity then it is either religious tradition, some fashion or whatever and cannot be justified especially when forced upon children that cannot express their own will.

Here is a quote from the above link re HIV and STD:

The medical evidence does not support the practice of neonatal circumcision to prevent STDs.

[...]“behavioral factors are far more important risk factors for acquisition of HIV and other sexually transmissible diseases than circumcision status, and circumcision cannot be responsibly viewed as “protecting” against such infections.”[...]

[...] there is insufficient evidence to recommend circumcision to prevent HIV infection.[...]

[...] it is the percentage of female sex workers in the female population, not the incidence of male circumcision, that determines the level of HIV infection. [...]

“The world community must cautiously review and carefully consider the long-term consequences of mass circumcision campaigns, from the risk of increasing deaths and infections to human rights violations. In the rush to save lives, many may instead be lost and human rights trampled in the stampede. Circumcision is not the panacea the world has been waiting for in the battle to stem the HIV crisis.

I was responding to what YOU said and it was daft. Nobody has claimed medical NECESSITY for infant circumcision, unless of course in specific cases where there really is such necessity (but I reckon those cases would often wait to see how things develop).

On the WHO recommendation for some countries, I get that is very controversial. I really don't have a strong opinion either way on whether there should be mass campaigns to cut based on the WHO position ... I guess I would if I lived in one of those African countries.

You're the one who used the word NECESSITY so it needed to be responded to. The WHO African country idea isn't a medical "necessity" either of course, it's a choice, a matter of risk vs. reward at the macro level for public health.

A medical NECESSITY would be HIV meds for those already infected.

I hope you can appreciate the difference between optional minor surgical procedures and medical NECESSITY.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Jingthing

[ggold]

"I couldn't speak when I was cut, but I can speak now," said Thomas Frederiksen, a 39-year-old machinist who traveled from Orlando to protest, wearing a red beret and "I (Heart) My Foreskin" T-shirt and speaking breathlessly about the issue.

I'm betting he's Gay!

I bet you bet a lot of guys are gay. And even if he is, who cares? Or are you just showing us what a great gay detector you are?

ooh sweetheart don't get your knickers in a twist.

[MikeOboe57]

Dear Jingthing,

Let me remind you what you answered to a poster who denied any medical necessity for circumcision on a healthy patient.:

Such as HIV prevention

"There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%." http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

If that isn´t a sound medical reason for the chop, then what is? Sadly this is nothing but a wild guess by some pro cut doctors and has no solid scientific backing, as you can find out if you find the time to read my link.

But I am glad that we now agree that there is no medical reason whatsoever for this procedure per se. Au contraire, the risks of this "optional minor surgical procedure" far outweigh any "possible" benefits, and we have not yet talked about possible adverse long term effects. Sadly as American doctors and hospitals make a shxtload of money from it (1.2 bn USD per annum) the urge to stop this nonsense is understandably only minor.

So after reading this whole thread I am still wondering why Americans are so obsessed with this mutilation. But I guess it is one of those cultural things like guns and fast food. And there is no way talking anyone out of it.

[Publicus]

If you don't mind me asking, did you have some sort of issue where the foreskin wouldn't retract fully, or was a pain to do so?

I had a friend in their early 20's who had tight foreskin that would be painful during sex, first the doctor incised it, it wasn't resolved and he went for circumcision. He says that the before and after are night and day, he's lost all the sensation from the area behind the head where the foreskin is connected. The most sensitive part of the body I believe. Completely removed and gone forever, never to be felt again. All the joy and sensations of the foreskin itself, completely removed and gone, then on top of this catastrophe there's the numbing of the head itself, taking pleasure away from the last piece left to recieve real pleasure from.

Nope, no medical or any such issues at all. Nothing at all about phimosis as retracting my foreskin while I had it was always easy and completely comfortable. No infections, pains, or medical difficulty in doing anything.

I really didn't like my foreskin as a matter of inconvenience, appearance, too much to have to do about it. Uncut means you have to wash it like crazy, meaning often and very thoroughly, get out any cheese and the like. That's another post of discussion, so for now....

My voluntary procedure at 19 involved local anesthetic in the urologists sterile surgical room in his suite. He and I chatted comfortably all the way through it, for about an hour. No bleeding, no problems. He'd already advised me the penis is full of blood vessels and veins but that circumcision done correctly produces only an instant trace of blood as if I'd lightly scratched the surface of my face. He said however some people bleed easily and for a while, so he asked me a series of questions about it until he was satisfied. He spent one visit examining my face and neck, saying that gives a good indication about bleeding or not bleeding because the face and neck have a ton of vessels and capillaries immediately under the skin. Asked me about shaving and bleeding and the like, no problem out of the ordinary.

I couldn't see anything lying down on the surgical table, but when I got up when we finished there was no sign whatsoever of any blood. He kept the souvenir in which I had no interest at all. The doc applied a bandage with a medical cream in it. Told me to change it each day for 7 days, no problem. No discharges of any kind throughout. He gave me pills in case of any pain but there wasn't any pain and I never used the pills. There was post surgical swelling which was not much or for long, about a week, but no feeling or inconvenience. No problem urinating.

The docs said no sex whatsoever for a month afterward, to which they added I'd anyway have no feeling or interest in sex during that time which was absolutely true. I hadn't gone that long since puberty but there was absolutely no interest. I didn't count the days but it wuz about 30 daze. And then like wow. It was like the Army ROTC my following year at university when we went to the field at an Army base for the summer, six weeks. Too consumed and exhausted 24/7 to have any interest or thought, then we all got back to the campus....

The sex is different. Not better, not worse. Just different. Just fine.

[Jingthing]

Medical reasons as in potential benefits for all ... yes. Medical necessity only in special cases. The dude attempting to make this about America bashing please grow up.

Nothing like an obsession. The obsessive are mostly the intactivists. My view is that either choice is fine.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited January 21, 2015 by Jingthing

[Publicus]

I'm American. Like I said the vast majority (over 90 percent) of American boys of my generation were circumcised because that was the standard medical practice then. Nothing to do with religion except for a very small segment of the population. Now it is being questioned more, Latinos generally don't cut for cultural reasons, but still quite widespread, and still perfectly OK to do according to the U.S. medical authorities. It is not considered mutilation. It's considered an optional medical procedure for babies and sometimes a medically required one for older males. There are pros and cons of cutting, yes there is some surgical risk but overall a very low risk procedure. The argument that if there is any risk it should never be done is bogus considering there are documented benefits to doing it.

The American medical establishment policy here is relevant to this thread as it's a story about a case of circumcision controversy there.

To wit:

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/2011-11-15-ama-adopts-new-policies.page

Stop Legal Prohibition of Male Circumcision

Ballot and other legal initiatives have recently been proposed in California that would ban infant male circumcision and penalize any physician who performed it. The AMA voted today to oppose any attempt to legally prohibit male infant circumcision.

"There is strong evidence documenting the health benefits of male circumcision, and it is a low-risk procedure, said Peter W. Carmel, M.D., AMA president. "Today the AMA again made it clear that it will oppose any attempts to intrude into legitimate medical practice and the informed choices of patients."

Is that the same American medical establishment who decided that Lobotomies were a valid procedure for people with mental illness ?

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/03/21/the-surprising-history-of-the-lobotomy/

In 1936, psychiatrist Walter Freeman and another neurosurgeon performed the first U.S. prefrontal lobotomy on a Kansas housewife. (Freeman renamed it “lobotomy.”)

Freeman believed that an overload of emotions led to mental illness and “that cutting certain nerves in the brain could eliminate excess emotion and stabilize a personality,” according to a National Public Radio article.

He wanted to find a more efficient way to perform the procedure without drilling into a person’s head like Moniz did. So he created the 10-minute transorbital lobotomy (known as the “ice-pick” lobotomy), which was first performed at his Washington, D.C. office on January 17, 1946.

(Freeman would go on to perform about 2,500 lobotomies. Known as a showman, he once performed 25 lobotomies in one day. To shock his audiences, he also liked to insert picks in both eyes simultaneously.)

Is that the same American medical establishment who decided that Lobotomies were a valid procedure for people with mental illness ?

It is the same American medical establishment that has 79 of the Nobel Prize in Medicine or Physiology, which is one single category. The 79 are more than any other single nationality, far and away. It is the same medical establishment that cured polio.

In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) argued that the preventive health benefits of newborn circumcision outweighed the risks as long as that circumcision was performed by trained professionals under sterile conditions with appropriate pain management. Medical benefits included prevention of urinary tract infection, genital carcinoma, reduced transmission of sexually transmitted infections such as HIV, reductions in rates of phimosis, paraphimosis, pseudophimosis, balanistis. Genital carcinoma is the top ranked cancer among Swedish males. Yet Dutch, British as well as Scandinavian pediatricians were not convinced of the benefits of circumcision as a routine practice. Further, in 2002, Sweden introduced restrictive legislation on male circumcision and, subsequently, the Swedish Pediatric Society called for a complete ban on ritual circumcision.

http://howardadelman.com/2013/10/13/circumcision-and-nobel-prizes/

[Publicus]

So let me say I voluntarily had myself cut when I was 19. I'd thought about it and researched it for several years up to actually having it done, so it was not a casual matter. Best decision of my youth and I've been congratulating myself ever since.

No pain or discomfort in it whatsoever for me. It is to me superior in every way to being uncut. People who want to make laws against voluntary circumcision and circumcision as a practice or choice need themselves to be restrained by the laws of every civilized society. They shouldn't be so cheesy about it either.

Interesting and pretty much what I suspected. It is easy to claim that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure, because very few people have experienced it both ways. As far as I can tell, it is nothing but a myth for most men.

Strange comment.

I think most of the people who had it done as infants may have some sort of defense-mechanism where they feel they have to defend it.

Fair enough, that is human psychology.

The bare facts of the matter are that the most sensitive and sexually receptive parts of the body have been amputated, so they can never experience (or genuinely understand) that pleasure.

It would be akin to taking away the receptors that view the entire light-spectrum at birth, so they can only see the red and yellow parts of a rainbow, they can still enjoy a rainbow, but not nearly as much as a person with the full set of receptors that recieves 7 colours instead of 2.

The prepuce is primary, erogenous tissue necessary for normal sexual function. The complex interaction between the sensitivity of the corpuscular receptor-deficient glans penis and the corpuscular receptor-rich ridged band of the male prepuce is required for normal copulatory behavior. ~Dr. Christopher Cold, M.D. and Dr. John Taylor, M.D.

An interesting read, actually, but quite pro-nature, which some circumcised people may not like.

Strange comment.

I think most of the people who had it done as infants may have some sort of defense-mechanism where they feel they have to defend it.

Fair enough, that is human psychology.

It is rat psychology to try to assign "defense mechanism" to people circumcised from any age. There is nothing about circumcision to defend or to have to defend. The psychology presented in the post is a construct and it is an imaginary construct that is pulp fiction. Trying to assign a defensiveness about being cut from birth or at any age is bizarre.

I have discussed my experience of voluntary circumcision at age 19 with several people during the long time since, but only occasionally and exceptionally. This is quite the first extended discussion of it I've had about it at all, much less with a group of people or in public.

So the evangelical aggressiveness of the uncut is something I find to be remarkable. Many of the uncut here are extreme and seek to impose the views of the uncut on others even to the point of enacting laws. Enacting laws involved enforcing the laws. Which involves and includes punishment(s). In modern society this is wild, irrational, bizarre.

Moreover, claims made by many of the uncut range from circumcision being ungodly, to its being some kind of a crime against nature, a grotesque offense against humanity, human mutilation and so on.

Some of you who are evangelicals about this need to get a grip, to get a hold of yourselves.

If nature has done anything in relation to the penis, it was to provide foreskin to protect against infection. That's all. And that was 100,000 or so years ago. Modern hygiene itself per se justifies medical science taking its own initiatives based on its own findings and standards. I made a post above discussing some of the medical advantages of circumcision. No one is making laws saying anyone has to be circumcised at any age, time, place, circumstance.

Anyone who wants to be or remain uncut is free to do so. But in respect of circumcision, they also need to keep their laws and punishments to themselves, and also to keep their rat psychology under wraps. Trying to say people who are circumcised at any age for any reason have some sort of psychological deficiency is just bizarre, presumptuous,OTT.

Chill out man.

[Lissos]

SKoreans believe being circumcised is not only hygienic, they believe it is also an important indicator of having a modern, advanced and prosperous society.

(1) Soap and Water

(2) On what do they base this? (that circumcision is an indicator of an advanced / prosperous society) ?

Now the real issue here is about parental rights over MEDICAL decisions for their children.

Indeed. In this particular case, what is the father's medical justification for wanting to have his infant son cut? Do we know?

infant male circumcision remains considered as a reasonable procedure for infants.

Perhaps, but for what pressing reason must it be done in infancy? (unless a clear case of being unable to retract the foreskin, etc)

.. but it has really no bearing on INFANT male circumcision in the U.S. ...

still very mainstream and in the vast majority of cases ... SECULAR.

Agreed. In the case of my father, it was not a religious motivation either.

His Dad had him done. Dad wanted us (myself and brother) done. We escaped it.

Both seem to have been motivated out of sheer family habit, not based on medical urgency.

[Publicus]

SKoreans believe being circumcised is not only hygienic, they believe it is also an important indicator of having a modern, advanced and prosperous society.

(1) Soap and Water

(2) On what do they base this? (that circumcision is an indicator of an advanced / prosperous society) ?

<<snip>>

The SKoreans said it to me during the two years I lived there and the broader findings are in the survey cited above by myself and also by another poster who quoted me about the circumcision survey findings there.

The SKoreans have their own ideas about this and they've also been influenced by the US culture of male circumcision at birth. The US 8th Army permanently stationed in SKorea since the 1950-53 Korean Conflict are decidedly circumcised and the S Koreans and US are formal defense treaty allies, so SK military started getting circumcised and it has continued and carried on to virtually every male, either at birth to even age 50 and older.

The US military began mass circumcision during WWII for reasons of hygiene and health. It carried over into the post WWII Baby Boom and has been a given for decades.

When I was pursuing voluntary circumcision doctors told me excessive washing of the penis, to include the foreskin, with soaps and other modern cleansing agents leads to minor inflammation or just plain discomfort. This includes antifungal soaps, all of 'em. The docs back then said to use Ivory soap as the least irritating cleansing agent and to use it sparingly in those areas.

The docs said the principal purpose of the foreskin is to prevent infection. The docs said that historically the foreskin is in this respect most important to the newborn and up to puberty. All the docs said however that modern circumcision at birth or at any age is healthy and non-complicating because of modern hygiene in Western society both personally and just about anywhere we go each day (at night might be another matter ha ha).

[Lissos]

When I was pursuing voluntary circumcision doctors told me excessive washing of the penis, to include the foreskin, with soaps and other modern cleansing agents leads to minor inflammation or just plain discomfort. This includes antifungal soaps, all of 'em. The docs back then said to use Ivory soap as the least irritating cleansing agent and to use it sparingly in those areas.

'Excessive' being the key word there I think, because similar warnings also exist about over use of introduced cleansing methods such as shampoo, gargling with mouth wash, overly regular sinus flushing, colonics, etc. In all those cases, excessive use of strong cleansers tends to strip the natural balancing act that the body does by itself (protective oils, naturally existing bacteria that are beneficia, etc) and can diminish natural protections / resistance. Moderation is the key regarding the body it seems. Regarding circumcision, adults choosing it for aesthetic reasons I find no problem with.