Circumcision is a crime now in Germany

And Now For Something Completely Different ....

And Now For Something Completely Different ....

Since we're skipping the serious, let's go with the American Medical Association:

The latest controversy occurred in San Francisco. Circumcision opponents collected more than 10,000 signatures to bring a proposal before voters to ban circumcising men younger than 18 unless medically necessary.

County of San Francisco Superior Court of California Judge Loretta M. Giorgi on July 27 struck the measure from the ballot. On Oct. 2, Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation that prevents local authorities from prohibiting or restricting male circumcision.

The same week, an editorial by Johns Hopkins University researchers published in the Oct. 5 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association highlighted the medical benefits of circumcision (jama.ama-assn.org/content/306/13/1479.extract).

The authors cited previous research that shows circumcised men are up to 60% less likely to contract HIV from a female partner than adult males who have not had the procedure.

The editorial said studies found that male circumcision also lowers men's risk of acquiring genital herpes by more than 30% and reduces their chances of contracting high-risk human papillomavirus by up to 35%. Infant males who are circumcised are less likely to get urinary tract infections than those who do not have the procedure, the editorial said.

Any ban on neonatal circumcision would deny religious freedoms to Jews and Muslims, who consider it a ritual obligation, the editorial stated.

Circumcision opponents question the validity of some of the studies cited in the editorial because they were halted early. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the studies ended after an analysis found a significant reduction in male participants' risk for HIV infection from circumcision.

(Moyer)​

To the one, the AMA "says the decision for neonatal circumcision should be determined by parents in circumstances in which the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being". But they also demand the parents be informed according to "accurate and unbiased information".

Meanwhile, the American Academy of Pediatrics is currently re-evaluating its stance on infant male circumcision. Since 1999, the AAP's outlook has been "that there is insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision". The position was reaffirmed seven years ago, but the AAP is revisiting the issue with the expectation of issuing a position statement by the end of the year.

Dr. Douglas Diekema, of the University of Washington, is a member of the AAP's Task Force on Circumcision. In late 2011, he explained of infant male circumcision, "There are some very real preventive benefits. The data is pretty clear about that." He acknowledged that the procedure comes with risks, "but most are minor". Additionally, he said "there was no question" that the Academy needed to update its position. He also serves as the director of education for Seattle Children's Hospital Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics.

In March, Diekema said the Task Force had reported to the Academy board of trustees, and suggested they would act before the year is out.

He could not divulge specifics on the task force's work because it is under embargo while the board considers it.

However, Dr. Diekema said the policy on routine circumcision will probably shift away from strict neutrality because of new data about the procedure's health benefits.

(O'Reilly)​

We'll have to see what comes. It is believed that the AAP's standing position is likely one of the factors driving a dramatic decline in infant circumcision, from 62.7% in 1999 to 54.5% a decade later.
____________________

Notes:

Moyer, Christine S. "Male circumcision ban defeated; health benefits lauded". AMedNews. October 18, 2011. AMA-Assn.org. July 10, 2012. http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2011/10/17/prsd1018.htm

O'Reilly, Kevin B. "Male newborn circumcision rate falls to lowest level". AMedNews. March 2, 2012. AMA-Assn.org. July 10, 2012. http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2012/02/27/prse0302.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

its a jewish plot hollywood plotline

circumstitions

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

if popular culture by way of hollywood disseminates circumcision as the norm, it is then hardly surprising that most americans will view it in a favorable light without really giving it much thought. it is propaganda

"ewww gross" is is the expected reaction towards an uncut penis by your average american female


as for foreskin man, yeah, stupid and.....

Many Jewish groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, alleged that a comic book called “Foreskin Man,” created by the proposed San Francisco ban’s author, draws on centuries-old stereotypes about Jews.​

 

What religion requires the removal of adenoids?

Or was it performed for a medical reason? I have been circumcised, because my foreskin was too small and I couldn't pass urine comfortably. I have no problem with surgery for medical reasons, but huge problems with people lopping parts off their children for no reason.

 

Well that's just tough shit on them, isn't it? Followers can choose to have it done once they reach adulthood, as parents can't give an Apostate their foreskin back. I know Muslims are supposed to kill Apostates, so that isn't really much of an issue for them, but we'd hardly support that 'religious freedom' that Muslim parents can kill children that lose faith, so religious belief, applied asymmetrically, is really no defense for circumcision.

 

actually, yes.
that's exactly why they were removed.

"prettier" may not apply to foreskin, but "cleaner" yes definitely.
while tradition and religion may be the main reason parents circumcise, but it does give logic to support it, if you ask a parent why did they just circumcise their child, they may so "why not?" or "because it say so in the bible", but if you ask them if that's the only reason, that you don't ascribe or follow those teachings, i'm sure 99/5 of them would easily follow"because it's cleaner".

and scientific studies all over, support and prove that. among other benefits.

 

i bet those who wax poetic about penile hygiene are also those that ask these kinds of questions......"How can I prevent myself from getting "skid marks" in my underwear?"


well i have a solution that should work equally well on humans

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

i also plan on marketing wine stoppers (after a few cosmetic modifications (one size fits all) and patenting) as a hygiene device

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

i will also use devious tactics to peddle my contraption.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And vice-versa, of course, as we've seen demonstrated here.

 

Absurd Hyperbole

None. I'm making a point about medical necessity.

See, here's the thing. I don't object to infant male circumcision. To the other, I'm not fixed on this point. I've never had to make the decision; I fathered a daughter, and do not plan on reproducing again. If in the future I do father another child, and it is a male, then I suppose I will have more of a stake in the outcome.

I was circumcised as an infant. While the underlying issues of the circumcision debate are valid, much of the extreme rhetoric of the anti-circumcision crowd is mystifying to me.

Here, let's go from the outset.

Comparisons of infant circumcision to female genital mutilation only go so far. Like Bells' argument about sexism—I don't get it, but I also know there's a vantage point I'm missing. I don't actually need to challenge her on the point. It is likely that continuing discussion on the point in general will eventually answer the question for me so that I can give the outlook fair consideration before I reproduce again. See, that I can deal with. It's arguable, and when I figure out what point of perspective I'm missing, I can decide whether or not it works.

However, if I actually remembered my circumcision, or could track back to the event through psychotherapy, perhaps the torturous cries argument would carry greater weight with me than seeming like a myopic appeal to emotion. It might not hold water for me, but it's not the worst argument in this thread, by far.

To wit, there is the minimization of female genital mutilation that ... I mean, really ... I can't figure out what that argument was intended to do. It seems very nearly like genital envy. And the whole breast tissue thing? I mean, come on. Really?

The comparison of removing the foreskin to removing entire glands is misguided. It overstates the one or understates the other. While certainly a more appreciable expression of the point, it's still out in strange realms.

The Stockholm syndrome argument is just silly. One might as well say etiquette such as the wearing of neckties is "similar to stockholm syndrome". (Seriously, neckties are ridiculous. They're uncomfortable, aesthetically repugnant more often than not, and seem to persist as a communal ritual standard.)

I should also note that the question of how one compares his infant-circumcised "mutilated sex life" to another's "unmutilated one" works both ways. One starts to wonder if this isn't so much about circumcision in general as denigrating circumcised men for some seemingly inexplicable reason.

What can be said about comparing circumcision to cutting off a child's toes? Or juvenile polygamy?

The beginning of the child abuse argument would have been predictable, but only if it was fair to presume people would take their objections to infant circumcision that far. Apparently, I underestimated the bounds of dignity.

The invocation of hysterectomies certainly didn't help advance the anti-circumcision argument in the mind of this infant-circumcised male who does not object to the fact that it was done.

The suggestion that one was assaulted by circumcision doesn't help, either.

The child's freedom and consent is an interesting issue, and it's fair to say that one of the markers for that discussion would be medical necessity.

The beating of children is a bit severe at least, but it can also apply to some degree in the consideration of a child's freedom and consent.

I will note, to be fair, that the pierced ears consideration in argument sympathetic to circumcision is a bit of a stretch, and I'm not certain the widsom teeth point works as I perceive it intended.

(We do realize, I'm only up to page three of the discussion?)

By the time we plow far enough through reiteration and escalation to find denunciations of child sexual abuse and the advice to "learn to hate the asshole that did that to you", the response, You're kidding, right? becomes a serious question.

Which brings us to my adenoids. They were removed at the same time I underwent myringotomy to alleviate pressure on my inner ear. The whole idea was that, no, removing the adenoids wasn't strictly necessary, but since they had me on the table, they might as well do it at the same time, since if the myringotomy failed to have its desired effect, adenoidectomy would be the next step. Indeed, it is still common practice to perform the procedures at simultaneously.

And my parents made a decision. That's fine with me. But if medical necessity is the standard, then someone, somewhere owes me my freaking adenoids.

That's how absurd this discussion is.

Meanwhile, the less cause I have to wonder about the apparent genital fixation driving the absolute silliness of the determination to convince circumcised men they've been mutilated, assaulted, and sexually abused, the better. Telling people they need to learn to hate isn't going to sell the argument.

But there are legitimate ethical considerations about the issue of infant male circumcision. They are drowning in hyperbole at present. And, yes, at some point it starts to look like the hyperbole is intended to discredit the anti-circumcision argument.

 

Some of this hyperbole is perfectly valid. It's not much of a stretch to compare female genital mutilation to circumcision. They are both medically unnecessary and have the potential of complications. They both remove a body part than one might miss later in life. They both tend to be religious in origin. The ethical thing would be to wait until a reasonable age so the kid can make up his own mind.

 

Never, ever lose sight of Hanlon's Razor.

As if the immediate response to your post there weren't reminder enough, but still...

 

perhaps you mean exactly the opposite?

 

omg! imagine never feeling this........

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

imagine losing all......

5. Specialized sensory tissue. In addition to the "ridged bands" mentioned above, thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors (Meissner’s corpuscles) constitute the most important sensory component of the penis. The foreskin contains branches of the dorsal nerve and between 10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types, which are capable of sensing slight motion and stretch, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations in texture ​

...that

OMG!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

imagine having to spend one's pocket money on vaseline

/rofl

 

but gustav, why do research papers conclude with either that circumcised men enjoy sex more, or the same as uncircumcised men?

or do scientific studies go out the window when we feel like it?

 

Perhaps the brain tries to compensate for the lack of nerve endings, the same way it compensates for blind spots in the eye.

 

research papers based on what, subjective accounts?

a cut says i enjoy sex this___________________________much
the uncut says i enjoy sex this_____________ much

is that it?
or perhaps you refer to studies that utilize the OrgasmOMeter

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

nah
the papers dont go out the window cos they never get in

 

THAT is the kind of snark that I've missed. Ahhh, you crack me up, Tiassa.

~String

 

Um. I can jack off dry. In fact, I've had to pull a quiet one once-or-twice when I was in bed with my boyfriend and I had to avoid waking him up.

~String