Knowing male circumcision and its advantages
Infant
Dr. Gbemisola Boyede is a consultant neuro-developmental paediatrician at the Lagos University Teaching Hospital (LUTH). She spoke with GERALDINE AKUTU, on circumcision and how to manage it.
*Prevents Urinary Tract Infection’
What should parents know about circumcision?
Male circumcision is the surgical removal of the foreskin; the foreskin is opened and then separated from the glans after inspection. Circumcision should not be performed without a qualified health professional and a sanitary environment. It can be done in the theatre, in the consulting room or at home. Newborn circumcision is often done in the hospital nursery, usually seven to eight days after birth. Circumcision is one of the world’s most widely-performed procedures. It is a religious or cultural ritual for many Jewish and Islamic families, as well as certain tribes in Africa and other parts of the world.
Are there any health benefits associated with circumcision?
Circumcision aids personal hygiene, as it makes it simpler to wash the penis. Though the risk of urinary tract infection in males is low, it is more common in uncircumcised males. Circumcision therefore prevents urinary tract infection.
Prevention of sexually transmitted infections: Circumcised men might have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.
Prevention of penile problems: Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can lead to inflammation of the foreskin or the head of the penis. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it is less common in circumcised men.
What risks are associated with this procedure?
Problems after circumcision are not common. The most common complications associated with circumcision are bleeding and infection. Circumcision may also result in foreskin problems, as the foreskin might be cut too short or too long. The foreskin might also fail to heal properly. When this happens, the remaining foreskin might re-attach to the end of the penis, requiring minor repair.
How is circumcision done?
There are two main methods used in circumcision: Plastibell or the Traditional Surgical Method (TSM).
Plastibell circumcision comes in six sizes to fit over the glands of various baby boys’ penises at birth. The most common size used is 1.2cm in diameter, followed by 1.3cm. Larger sizes of 1.5 and 1.7cm are used infrequently. The doctor looks at your child’s penis and estimate the appropriate size. The foreskin is separated, a small cut is made and then the plastic is put on the glands and tied. The foreskin is then cut and cleaned up. No gauze and no dressing is applied afterwards as you just wear your baby his diaper after the procedure.
The TSM involves separation of the foreskin and cutting the extra flesh. In some cases, doctors need to put stitches to prevent bleeding. Thereafter, a dressing is placed on the glans. The dressing will be removed after some days unlike the plastibel, which does not require dressing and falls on its own 3-5 days after the procedure.
What is the value of the foreskin?
There is really no value to the foreskin apart from covering the glans penis. It is, however, very useful in some surgical procedures to repair abnormalities of the penis for example hypospadias.
What precautions should parents take after a baby has been circumcised?
Post-circumcision care is very important. Circumcision causes pain; and for newborns, this pain may interfere with mother-infant interaction, or cause other behavioural changes. Paracetamol drops or syrup should be given twice daily for two to three days. Surgical type circumcision should be done under local anesthesia. For surgical circumcision, a light dressing such as gauze, with petroleum jelly should be placed over the head of the penis. The next time the baby urinates, this dressing usually will come off. Some pediatricians recommend keeping a clean dressing on until the penis is fully healed, while others advise leaving it off.
The important thing is to keep the area as clean as possible. If particles of stool get on the penis, wipe it gently with soap and water during diaper changes.
Great care should be taken not to apply engine oil. It is an hydrocarbon and can give the baby dermatitis. Pure olive oil can be used.
For the plastibell method, you don’t need to do anything in terms of dressing or otherwise. The plastibell covers the raw area, but the baby should be bathed normally. All the mother needs to do is just to wait for the plastic to drop usually in five days, but it may take up to a week. While this lasts, normal routine care of the baby should be continued.
Once the plastic drops, the circumcision is healed just bath the baby and the penis area normally. It is alright to wash the penis as it heals. Once the penis heals, wash it with soap and water during normal bathing. Change diaper often and avoid baby stools getting on to the area.
Related
Latest
Get the latest news delivered straight to your inbox every day of the week. Stay informed with the Guardian’s leading coverage of Nigerian and world news, business, technology and sports.
254 Comments
These national medical organizations all have a very different view:
Canadian Paediatric Society
https://www.cps.ca/en/media/release-communique/canadian-paediatricians-revisit-newborn-male-circumcision-recommendations
“OTTAWA— In an updated statement released today, the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) continues to recommend against the routine circumcision of newborn males.”
Royal Australasian College of Physicians
https://www.racp.edu.au/docs/default-source/advocacy-library/circumcision-of-infant-males.pdf
“After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand.”
(almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. “Routine” circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia.)
British Medical Association
https://bma.org.uk/-/media/Files/PDFs/Practical%20advice%20at%20work/Ethics/Circumcision.pdf
“to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate.”
“The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks.”
Danish Medical Association
https://www.thelocal.dk/20161205/danish-doctors-come-out-against-circumcision
“The Danish Medical Association (Lægeforeningen) has recommended that no boys under the age of 18 be circumcised in Denmark.
The association released its recommendation on Friday, saying that circumcision should be “an informed, personal choice” that young men should make for themselves.”
The Royal Dutch Medical Association
https://knmg.artsennet.nl/Diensten/knmgpublicaties/KNMGpublicatie/Nontherapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm
“The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity.”
Swedish Paediatric Society
“Circumcision of young boys for religious and non-medical reasons ought to be banned in Sweden, urged the Swedish Paediatric Society (Svenska barnläkarföreningen, BLF).”
https://www.thelocal.se/20120219/39200
Mexican Secretariat of the Interior
” Evitar como práctica rutinaria la circuncisión, toda vez que no existe evidencia científica que compruebe un beneficio directo a la persona recién nacida.”
Sec 5.7.13 “Avoid circumcision as a routine practice, since there is no scientific evidence to prove a direct benefit to the newborn person.”
https://www.dof.gob.mx/DOFmobile/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5432289
https://www.crin.org/resources/infodetail.asp?id=31830
“[30 September 2013] – At a meeting today in Oslo, the children’s ombudspersons from the five Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland), and the children’s spokesperson from Greenland, in addition to representatives of associations of Nordic paediatricians and pediatric surgeons, have agreed to work with their respective national governments to achieve a ban on non-therapeutic circumcision of underage boys.”
German Pediatric Association
https://www.intactamerica.org/german_pediatrics_statement
(very long, but very much against circumcision, and includes the following)
“Therefore it is not understandable that circumcision of boys should be allowed but that of girls prohibited worldwide. Male circumcision is basically comparable with FGM types Ia and Ib that the Schafi Islamic school of law supports”
EXCELLENT INFORMATION! Thank you for posting this!
Lies, damned lies and… Mark’s usual copy and paste post. A list of carefully selected quotes designed to deceive any unwary readers and leave them believing these medical bodies actually agree with the claims made by Intactivists like Mark. They don’t.
Canadian Paediatric Society
A truthful summary of their position would be that they do not consider the medical advantages of circumcision great enough to recommend universal circumcision. They specifically state that it is a matter for a parent to decide for their child. They do NOT claim circumcision causes significant harm and do NOT oppose routine infant circumcision.
Royal Australasian College of Physicians
A deliberate misrepresentation of the views of the Australians.
Mark “forgot” to include the final sentence from that quote:
“However it is reasonable for parents to weigh the benefits and risks of circumcision and to make the decision whether or not to circumcise their sons.”
So, as with the Canadian Paediatric Society, the Australians do not oppose circumcision and do not make ridiculous claims about the harm it causes. They just do not believe the medical benefits are worth the effort in Australia.
British Medical Association
The BMA specifically states that is does NOT have a position on the ethics of routine circumcision because, as they acknowledge, there are a wide variety of opinions among the Doctors who are members of the BMA.
It goes on to state:
“The BMA believes that parents should be entitled to make choices about how best to promote their children’s interests.”
So the British, like the Canadians, Australians (and in fact the Americans) have come to pretty much the same conclusion: circumcision has minor medical benefits that aren’t worth the effort of Universal circumcision, but since it doesn’t have a significant risk of harm it is something that should be left to parents to decide.
AND on and on… NONE of these medical bodies claim circumcision risks significant harm, and where opposition exists, it is on purely ethical grounds, not medical grounds… and ethics is a matter of opinion, not fact. THIS is a fact that is acknowledged by EVERY legal system in the world: PARENTS are the best judge of the ethics of circumcision for their children.
The Danish Medical Association concludes that is UNETHICAL to perform circumcision until the person is 18 years of age and can give informed consent:
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/health/2016/12/11/Danish-Doctors-Group-Wants-to-End-Circumcision-for-Boys/stories/201612110195
The Royal Dutch Medical Association explains the impact of male genital cutting, euphemistically known as circumcision. The procedure carries many risks of harm and damage; has an adverse effect on sexual
function and bodily appearance; and is a violation of the child’s right
to physical integrity.
https://www.circinfo.org/Dutch_circumcision_policy.html
Yes, interesting how the intactivist argument has moved on from the insupportable claims of death and massive harm to ethics.
As has already been pointed out, ethics are subjective. Imposing your beliefs on others without evidence that their actions are likely to cause significant harm is equally unethical.
By “insupportable,” are you claiming that infant male genital cutting has never resulted in death? If so, that is patently false.
Ethics may be subjective, but are often generally agreed upon…we are slowly reaching that point with involuntary genital cutting.
I am suggesting no such thing, just that such cases are so rare as to be insignificant, and always the result of gross medical negligence.
It is amusing how intactivists consider the lifetime risk of penile cancer for an uncircumcised male in the US (about 1 in 600) is irrelevant while the vanishingly small risk of circumcision related death in medical setting is significant!
Both genitally altered and intact men get penile cancer. As a former board member of a local unit, I can tell you that the American Cancer Society does NOT recommend circumcision as a preventive measure. The ACS wrote a letter to the AAP asking them to stop promoting it for this reason. Other factors, like smoking, have much greater risks.
I am well aware of the advice about penile cancer, and the reasons for it. Medical bodies DO recognise that circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer. Because the lifetime risk is low (1 in 3 for all cancers, 1 in 600 for penile cancer) it does not justify routine circumcision on medical grounds.
My point stands: low though the risk of penile cancer is, it is many, many times higher than the risk of death from circumcision…
Male breast cancer is much more common than penile cancer. Therefore, I assume you would be ok with removing the breast buds of baby boys at birth.
Your arguments are now getting quite silly. I suggest you stop reading from the “How to win an argument” section on foreskin fetish websites.
Quite simply it is a matter of degree. If the risk of male breast cancer were as high as the risk of female breast cancer you would find some males would choose pre-emptive breast removal, as some (few) women do. But the negative consequences of breast removal for males is FAR in excess of the risk reduction.
Even something as minor as circumcision isn’t considered appropriate to reduce the risk of penile cancer: breast removal to reduce the (similarly low) risk of male breast cancer is way out of proportion.
“Quite simply it is a matter of degree.”
And here is where your pro-genital cutting arguments implode. There is almost a zero probability the foreskin will ever need to be excised (look at Finland’s circumcision rate of 1/16,700 for empirical proof), but there is a 100% probability cutting genital tissue results in harm. It is, quite simple, a matter of degree. And you just exposed your own hypocrisy.
I am not Pro anything. I am anti exagerations and downright lies intended to impose YOUR beliefs on other parents.
The rest of your post is an example of this.
You litter this thread with biased comments that ignore scientific fact while simultaneously pretending you’re not imposing your (uneducated) beliefs on others. You don’t even realize how hypocritical you are. Amazing.
Even more vexing is how you proclaim to be “anti-exaggeration”, particularly when it comes to influencing parental decisions yet are completely oblivious to the fact that that is exactly what the uneducated, profiteering American medical community has been doing for decades in lying to parents: exaggerating the “benefits” of male genital mutilation while concealing the risks of the (unnecessary) surgery and the benefits of intact genitalia. Shame on you.
Your “point” misses the point. The point is that male genital cutting, 100% of the time, results in permanent injury and tissue loss. That is indisputable. Don’t perform medically unnecessary surgeries on helpless infants that will 100% guarantee harm just because there is an infinitesimal chance decades later that they may reduce the risk of otherwise getting an disease. Such stupidity.
Not only is that disputable but it IS disputed. Legally accountable medical bodies (as opposed to single issue propoganda groups with no legal accountability) must consider ALL the evidence, and the general consensus is that circumcision has only minor health benefits but also insignificant risk.
You can spew propoganda with legal impunity.
Hogwash. That male genital cutting, 100% of the time, results in injury is indisputable fact. Show me a circumcision that doesn’t replace functional, healthy, innervated tissue with a scar. Show me one. You lecture others about considering “all” evidence while flat-out ignoring the most indisputable evidence of all. Know reality.
Not intact…you are uncircumcised and abnormal in the USA! You were the freak show in the locker room! Go use the foreskin cream…looks like you could use some!
Like imposing your beliefs on your child’s body?
It is a parent’s duty to act in what they believe to be the best interests of their child.
It is not your duty to impose your beliefs on other parents, particularly when, as is usually the case in these forums, it is done through exagerations and downright lies.
We do not own our children- they are entrusted to our care. How is it ethical to amputate healthy and essential genital tissue and irreversibly change a baby’s body for no imminent life saving reason? Routine infant circumcision violates every ethical standard of the AMA for surgery on minors. His body his choice. It can wait until he is old enough to decide.
Circumcision is no more invasive than removing healthy teeth in order to fit braces for purely cosmetic reasons, and it is far less permanent and harmful than many other decisions parents make on behalf of their children: religious education, choice of school, diet and excercise, morals and values, to name but a few.
Why are you so fucussed on the genitals of other people’s children?
“it is far less permanent”
Do explain how the permanent removal of genital tissues is “far less permanent” than anything else. Do you not know the definition of permanent?
The harm is far less permanent. The harm from circumcision is generally confined to the time of the procedure. The harm from schooling decisions, religious indoctrination, etc can last much longer.
Wrong. The harm from circumcision is permanent. The excised tissue is lost forever. Any other fallacies you’d like eviscerated?
Excised tissue does not automatically equal harm. Your own fetish is exposed by the fact that the only ones who claim circumcision causes significant harm are foreskin fetishists with an unhealthy interest in the genitals of other people’s children.
No accountable medical body in the world, not even those most opposed to routine circumcision, claim it is likely to result in significant harm.
That is why no legislature in the world has ruled circumcision illegal.
That is neither false nor an assumption: excised tissue always equals harm. That is scientific fact: circumcision removes functional, healthy, innervated tissue, permanently, and replaces it with a scar. If you don’t understand what that means, then you’re obtuse.
Sadly for you your claims do nothing but highlight your own fetish since only the foreskin fetishists with an unhealthy interest in the genitals of other people’s children claim circumcision is likely to cause significant harm.
No accountable medical body in the world, not even those most opposed to routine circumcision, claim it is likely to result in significant harm… which rather destroys your argument.
They make great anti-wrinkle cream…go try it! It is $137 an oz and can be found at Nordstroms, Macys, and Neiman Marcus. We buy ist at Nordstroms and the girls their are very knowledgeable about the product…..it is best to use early and nip the wrinkles before you have any!
I have no interest in smearing illegally harvested genital tissue from helpless, infant rape victims on my face.
There is nothing illegal! It is a good use for a useless flap of skin. They also grow skin from foreskins for burn victims.
You’re an ignoramus if you think the foreskin is a “useless flap of skin”. The prepuce is a double-layered fold of smooth muscle tissue, blood vessels, neurons, skin, and mucous membrane–a functional, innervated organ that covers and protects the glans and contributes to sexual pleasure. You don’t even know basic human anatomy, and you’re in denial about the inferiority of you and your sons’ mutilated genitals. Know reality.
Circumcision perfects the imperfect……
^^ imperfect ^^
You are entitled to your opinion, until you try to carve it into another human being’s body.
Informed adults can decide for themselves. Not one medical association endorses forced genital cutting.
No one endorses buying your 16yo a Porsche, but my mother bought me one…..BTW- WHO, The CDC and the AAP basically all endorse circumcision… It will become a class issue….poor will be filthy and uncircumcised
LIES.
AAP: “there is insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision”
LIES.
AAP: “the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision”
I don’t get your point…my mother is a physician and is pro circumcision…
3 circumcised boys 2 to 9…..7 circumcised nephew’s…
So, by your logic, if a parent wants to tattoo his newborn, or arrange for plastic surgery on a toddler, then you’re OK with that, right?
If my kid had FU ears or nose they would be fixed…..Just like their uncut penis when they were born!
Of course you pass your beliefs onto your child…..Why else would you breed?
Screw Eurotrash…..No one cares about Europeans! Funny that the uncut dweebs are the ones against circumcision! You grew up odd man out and try to feel better about being the freak!
If you’re so sure of your position, then why don’t you use your real name, Bilbo Baggins?
Because this is the Internet, Greg. Sensible people don’t use their real name on the Internet.
Sensible people? Or maybe those who can’t stand behind their opinion.
I don’t know where you came up with that last part, but I did not post anything like it or edit it. Someone else may have done so.
I’m sorry, it was Greg Garret that posted it, not you. I will amend my comment.
Only an idiots uses their name on the internet! You should go with Rumple Foreskin!
You *do* realize that none of the actors who have played Bilbo Baggins are circumcised, right? Perhaps you should use a better name, like your real name maybe?
We’re going over old ground, so I’ll keep this short.. Yes, it’s a cut and paste, and I’ve highlighted the sections which are more against circumcision, but that was in response to a very misleading article, and it’s wrong to suggest that my comment is trying to mislead anyone, especially since I’ve linked to several statements so that people can make up their own minds. You seem to have selectively quoted from that BMA paragraph btw.
As I’ve pointed out before, national medical organizations in Sweden, Germany, and South Africa have called for bans on non-therapeutic circumcision of boys not old enough to consent (the South Africans allowed for religious exemptions), and in the Netherlands and Denmark, they’ve said they would support a ban if they didn’t think it would drive the practice underground.
“NONE of these medical bodies claim circumcision risks significant harm”
Not true. The RACP say this for instance: “Infection is usually minor but uncommonly septicaemia and meningitis may occur and rarely these complications may lead to death, even in modern times in modern health systems.”
Septicaemia and meningitis from circumcision? Yes, I think that qualifies as an insignificant risk… so insignificant it isn’t even listed as a possible consequence of circumcision by the NHS in their “risk list’, for example.
They’re not insignificant when weighed against the specious medical rationalizations. For example, the oft-quoted “60% reduction in HIV transmission” is a relative number and only for female-to-male. The absolute reduction, in trials with significant methodological flaws, is about 1%. https://www.aidscirc.org/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread.html
The 2009 Wawer study in Rakai, Uganda (stopped early because of “futility”) actually found a higher rate of male-to-female HIV transmission for cut men.
Leaving aside your inaccurate HIV comments for the moment… so what? Minor risks, minor medical benefits. That is why every country in the world considers it a matter of parental choice.
None of your comments has addressed the loss of functionality caused by prepuce excision.
In common with all fanatics, Greg, you seek evidence to support your beliefs instead of basing yoru beleifs on the evidence. There is no compelling evidence that circumcision results in any loss of sexual pleasure. There are studies which suggest this is the case, and there are studies which suggest it is not.
That being the case it may seem prudent to avoid the risk… but that fails to take into account the fact that circumcision isn’t a new or unusual procedure: the consequences are well known since billions of men have been circumcised over time, and circumcised men continue to circumcise their sons.
This is a very hard argument for the foreskin fetisheists to counter – the Intactivist propoganda script tells you to use the “color-blind” argument: that circumcised men just don’t know what they are missing… but this fails to account for why men circumcised as adults ALSO circumcise their sons!
All that aside, the very fact that whether circumcision causes any reduction in pleasure is debatable tells you that any such reduction isn’t significant or noticable: if there was a noticable reduction in pleasure it would be, well.. noticable!
There is no loss….you are just delusional in your foreskin fog!
What is inaccurate about my HIV comments?
Your HIV argument suffers from the same problem the rest of your arguments suffer from: your desire to find evidence to support your beliefs instead of basing your beliefs on the evidence. Once again I suggest you seek advice from legally accountable bodies who have weighed up ALL the evidence when reaching their conclusions… and the fact is that no legally accountable medical body in the world refutes the claim that circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexual HIV.
To counter this, the foreskin fetish propoganda sites recommend you use the conspiracy theory argument: that Doctors around the world are supporting the UNAIDS program because they earn so much money from circumcision. Even assuming such a level of ciminal negligence on the part of so many Doctors, this argument fails because even legally accountable medical bodies which generally oppose routine circumcision (such as the NHS and BMA) STILL don’t refute the claim the circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexual HIV!
You have not addressed my comment about Type Ia FGC. I assume you consider it “parental choice;” however, it is a Federal crime in the US.
It hardly merits a response: this Intactivist tactic of comparing circumcision with FGM in an effort to make circumcision seem worse than it is backfires because most people know circumcised men so it makes FGM seem less harmful instead of making circumcision see more harmful.
I base my opinions on the expressed views of legally accountable bodies, not foreskin fetish propoganda sites who can claim what they like with legal impunity. And legally accountable medical bodies in the West, without exception, state that all forms of FGM carry with them a high risk of significant harm with absolutely no medical benefit.
It’s my body and my choice. There is no compelling reason to excise healthy, functional erogenous tissue. If one existed, medical organizations would make a recommendation to do so – they have not. Cultural preference does not justify cutting off the most sensitive portion of a child’s genitalia.
That’s YOUR opinion and YOUR belief… but parents take into account many factors when deciding what is in the best interests of their child, rightly including community, tradition, religious, cleanliness or any other percieved benefits for their child. Who are YOU to tell a parent those benefits are insignificant? Who are YOU to tell a parent they must not act in what they beleive to be the best interests of their child?
Unless you can demonstrate their actions are likely to cause significant harm you have no right to impose your beliefs on anyone.
Who are YOU to say that my parents had the right to slice up my perfectly healthy, normal, functioning genitals?
I want my foreskin back!
So go stretch it you FU Freak….
Go get that nasty disgusting penis of yours circumcised! You are lower than a dog in my book! A mere filthy animal!A good place to start……. https://circumcisioncenter.com/
Fide you are full of shit….I bet you are uncut and were always the odd man out! Did the mean boys call you Rumple Foreskin….LMFAO
The Key is they all have Socialized Medicine and do not want to pay for it…..
Who cares what they think Eurotrash, Canadian and 3rd world……..LMFAO!
“What is the value of the foreskin?
There is really no value to the foreskin apart from covering the glans
penis. It is, however, very useful in some surgical procedures to repair
abnormalities of the penis for example hypospadias.”
So foreskin absolutely has no value except for the value it has? You just have to reverse gender of this article to see how sexist it is. The author who most probably has a vagina is declaring parts of the sexual organs of males as irrelevant and surplus.
Most men who had the chance to grow up with their foreskin do not see any purpose in or need for removing it.
There seems to be a lot of variation between different men, but my foreskin contains the most sensitive and pleasurable parts of my penis by far. It isn’t just there to protect the glans.
Actuallysex is between your ears…..you may have an empty head….
Well said. To quote the American Academy of Pediatrics brochure on care of the “uncircumcised” (aka “intact” or “natural”) penis: “The foreskin protects the glans throughout life.”
According to a 2007 study published in the British Journal of Urology International, the inner layer of the prepuce (foreskin) is the most sensitive part of the penis:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847
Here is more information on foreskin function: https://www.butterflybirth.com/the-fabulous-functional-foreskin/
Seeking just evidence that supports your own beliefs instead of basing your beliefs on the evidence is typical of fanatics.
Your appraisal of the evidence seems to have missed out all the evidence that shows circumcision has no negative impact on sexual pleasure.
Legally accountable medical bodies don’t have that luxury to be blatantly biased, which is why they reach a very different conclusion from you.
The irony of you posting this–“Your appraisal of the evidence seems to have missed out all the evidence that shows circumcision has no negative impact on sexual pleasure”–right after posting this–“Seeking just evidence that supports your own beliefs instead of basing your beliefs on the evidence is typical of fanatics”–would be comical if it wasn’t so pathetic and dangerous.
Anyone who understands basic anatomy and science knows that it is empirically impossible to remove functional, innervated genital tissue and not have any “negative impact on sexual pleasure”. You seriously need to get educated, starting with basic logic. I suggest you register for the following courses at your local community college: Logic 101, Anatomy 101, Research and Methodology 101.
Oh, dear. Comprehension isn’t your strong suit, is it. Let me explain:
When attempting to reach an accurate conclusion you must consider ALL the evidence, not just the evidence which supports your pre-held beliefs.
Greg quoted just evidence from one side. I pointed out that he needed to consider evidence from the other side too.
Do you understand now or would you like me to use smaller words?
Oh, and your second paragraph is simply unfounded nonsense.
Drop the condescension. It impresses no one and wastes everyone’s time. Debate like an adult, not a child.
That’s rich coming from someone who cherry-picks research and ignores scientific fact.
Unfounded nonsense? What bubble do you live in that indisputable scientific fact is “unfounded”? Try refuting it. If it’s “unfounded”, that should be easy. Yet, you didn’t. Because you can’t.
The scientific reality is being circumcised is healthier, cleaner and looks much better with no downside! If I had a daughter she would be taught the dangers of sleeping with uncircumcised men.
You have no understanding of science, and you are unfit to parent.
I am a great father to my 3 circumcised all American boys! They are spoiled, but we have the bank to provide basically anything…..
Sexually assaulting your sons by mutilating their genitals, robbing them of sexual pleasure and function, automatically disqualifies you as being a “great father”. I hope you get educated, learn the harm you did, and apologize to them.
Dude, sick demented people like you should be monitored. You more than likely have a job neat young males….. Note than likely wetback so you can see their nasty uncut animal dicks
….
The ignoramus who paid for his sons to be sexually assaulted is calling the educated folk who protect children’s rights “sick” and “demented”. Oh the sad, sad irony. Your sons’ mutilated genitals are inferior to intact ones, and you’re to blame for that. Shame on you.
My son’s nor my penis are inferior…..circumcision perfects the imperfect. Uncircumcised is for the poor, Eurotrash and wetbacks…..My insurance paid, so Fcuk off…..
You’re in denial. It’s a common coping mechanism. I’m here to disillusion you: your mutilated genitals are missing functional, erogenous tissue. Permanently chopping them off forever removed those functions and nerves, and the result my is a high-friction, rough broom handle shaft with fewer nerves, a keratinized, desensitized glans, and a hideous, discolored scar. The grand majority of the world is intact. Mutilated genitals are abnormal and inferior. Get educated.
Are you dead yet? X100
The truth never dies:
“The foreskin has a number of important protective and sexual functions. It protects the penile glans against trauma and contributes to the natural functioning of the penis during sexual activity. Ancient historic accounts and recent scientific evidence leave little doubt that during sexual activity the foreskin is a functional and highly sensitive, erogenous structure, capable of providing pleasure to its owners and his potential partners.” – Nordic Association of Clinical Sexology’s Statement on Non-Thereapeutic Circumcision of Boys:
Preppy is a nickname for the prepuce. Prepuce excision rituals cause brain chemistry malfunctions leading to cognitive dissonance with paranoid delusions, leading to preppydad syndrome, which is preparing for the apocalypse, which is caused by ritual infant circumcision. Prepare means to pre cut. It’s a viscous cycle of terror on terror.
Live your lonely pathetic life….you foreskin freak.
Are you queer ad well as a foreskin fetishist?
How is my little queer Foreskin Freddie?
You should get Jesus off your cross…..someone else may need the wood! At least your savior was circumcised.
Well said.
BS…there are doctor’s across the USA that specialize in teen and adult circumcisions. I recently ran across an ad for lasercircumcisions in a local rag….It said same day service in and out in an hour.
There are doctors across the USA that specialize in teen and adult circumcisions. There are full page ads in my area advertising laser circumcisions in office for teens and adults.
They make great anti wrinkle cream….$137 an ounce, but well worth it. My wife and I use it for preventive care, which should be done while still young!
They make good anti wrinkle cream….just ask Oprah.
The value, you would have to ask the guys that make the anti wrinkle cream what they pay…can’t be much. They do charge $137 for an oz…..
All children, regardless of gender, culture or parental religion, have a fundamental right to keep all their healthy, functional body
parts. Since an infant is incapable of religious beliefs, imposing an irreversible body alteration on him violates the freedom to choose his own religion as an adult. It differs from religious education, which can be changed. My body belongs to me!
I thought I recognised you – aren’t you the guy who protests outside dental surgeries against children having teeth removed and braces fitted for purely cosmetic reasons?
Oh wait, no. You are only interested in the genitals of other people’s children.
My mistake.
Actually, I’m trying to get misinformed doctors to keep their hands of other people’s children. Dental surgery is not comparable – braces for cosmetic reasons do not impede function; no one should remove children’s teeth for purely cosmetic reasons (who would do that…?).
Who would do that? Every dentist who fits braces. That’s who. What about pinning back ears for purely cosmetic reasons? Do you protest that?
And since you are incapable of providing evidence that circumcision causes any significant harm who are YOU to impose your beliefs on other parents? Like all fanatics, you pick and choose the evidence that fits your beliefs rather than basing your beliefs on the evidence.
Legally accountable medical bodies don’t have that luxury: they must consider and weigh up ALL the evidence, and they conclude there is no significant harm from circumcision. “Ethics” is the only real argument against circumcision, and ethics are subjective. I find it unethical to indoctrinate children in religion for example. Perhaps all churches, synagogues and mosques should be shut down by law?
I guess it depends on the tooth and the situation – a dentist wouldn’t remove a perfectly good front tooth based on parental wishes. I’ve never heard of “pinning ears back.”
There is plenty of evidence of harm – just ask males cut in adulthood about what they’re missing. Men cut as infants have no basis for comparison of natural and surgically reduced body parts. Also, see my post above from the Royal Dutch Medical Association.
If male genital alteration is so beneficial, then why doesn’t the AAP (or any national medical organization) recommend it? An AAP Task Force member admitted (in a letter published in Pediatrics) that the procedure is cultural. Why should parents be allowed to removal healthy, functional erogenous tissue based on cultural whim and no compelling medical reason?
Finally, since I’m not aware of any research documenting the harm of a Type Ia FGC procedure (clitoral prepuce excision), then I suppose you have no problem with that “parental decision.”
I was circumcised in my late twenties so I’ll ask myself… just a moment….. No, can’t say it has made any difference to my pleasure.
Well, that settles that, then. You have it from the horse’s mouth.
And if you bother to read my comments I do NOT claim circumcision is “so beneficial”. I claim it has minor medical benefit and insignificant risk and is rightly a choice a parent should make taking into account any percieved non-medical benefits for the child.
Finally… try reading what legally accountable edical bodies have to say about FGM in any form.
I guess you speak for all men, about the lack of value of a foreskin, then.
You are the guy who couldn’t figure out that if you left the foreskin slightly retracted, there would be no urine under the foreskin, right? You had an amputation instead, for “cleanliness”.
Has anybody called you an idiot?
No. I was simply countering Greg’s assertion that men circumcised as adults notice the loss of sensation.
And while I agree an uncircumcised penis is “clean enough”, a circumcised penis is certainly cleaner. Your understanding of anatomy is lacking: the shape of the urethra ensures that a drip or two of urine usually exits some minutes after urination, damping the glans regardless of whether you pull the foreskin back while urinating or not.
How could you possibly know what my understanding of anatomy is, you pretentious twit?
Umm.. perhaps because you wrote it in the post I was responding to? You claimed you could keep the glans urine free by retracting when urinating.
That claim is false. The glans of ALL uncircumcised men is bathed in stale urine most of the time… any honest uncircumcised man will Co firm this for you.
No, I claimed, and it is true, that you can easily keep the glans urine free, by leaving the foreskin slightly retracted when you put it back in your underwear. This was in response to your bullshit about the glans being marinated in urine for every man with a foreskin. Mine is never, ever, marinated in urine. You are free to check.
Now I KNOW you are circumcised! You CANNOT leave the foreskin retracted: it rolls forward over the glans as soon as you sit or bend forward… trapping hairs and pulling them painfully when you stand.
I call bullshit, and repeat that your knowledge of anatomy is sadly lacking.
This is like all your other knowledge. Wishful thinking at best.
Keep digging. Any one of your intactivist friends with a foreskin will confirm what I said. What I don’t understand is why you lied about being circumcised… how does that strengthen your argument?
(By the way it us the function of the ridged band to hold the foreskin over the head.)
The more you talk, the more you expose yourself as an idiot.
It is not the function of the ridged band to hold the foreskin over the head. It is the function of the frenulum.
I never lied about being circumcised, because I am not, in fact, circumcised.
How you can fail to be embarrassed is beyond me.
Wow. OK. You have clearly demonstrated both your ignorance of the parts of the penis (do you even know where the ridged band is?) and your dishonesty (since no man with a foreskin would claim it was possible to leave it “slightly retracted”).
Let’s leave it at that.
I claimed you could put it back in your pants slightly retracted. I didn’t say it would stay that way.
I know where my ridged band is. It is where the inner and outer foreskin meet. All I have to do is unzip and look down.
Do you know where your ridged band is?
Do you see the idiocy of a man who had a part cut off, lecturing a man who did not, about the properties of that part?
Not when the man who had the part cut off has experienced both. My ridged band is in the medical waste somewhere… since I no longer have a foreskin I don’t have use for the band which holds it over the glans, do I. (and it is the ridged band that does that, not the frenulum!)
And “slightly retracted” isn’t possible… Unless it is tucked behind the head it won’t stay retracted for more than a few seconds!
And, having experienced a foreskin, I can assure you leaving it retracted, fully or partially, is not an option since when it rolls forward it almost inevitably traps hairs which is very painful. If you had a foreskin you would know this, and if you had a foreskin you would know it is always damp at the end of the day. What do you think that dampness is? And why do you think it stinks like a urinal if not washed daily? Stale urine, perhaps?
You can claim an uncircumcised penis is “clean enough”. You CANNOT claim it is possible to keep it as clean as a circumcised penis.
What can you not understand about putting it back in your underwear, slightly retracted?
The underwear absorbs the last drop or two, and then the foreskin covers the head completely.
Is that really so hard for you to understand?
Why are you so heavily invested in believing I don’t have a foreskin? What is it buying you?
There is something the matter with you. I am deadly serious.
^^ a man who had a part cut off, lecturing a man who did not ^^
What’s really idiotic is any person thinking they can decide for another person about how much of their healthy normal genitals will be excised.
^^ to hold the foreskin over the head. It is the function of the frenulum. ^^
There is disagreement about that. In many intact men the frenulum would only draw skin that has been bunched up near the base to the sulcus. Some see this as evidence that the frenulum functions primarily to give pleasurable sensations when it is stretched during intimacy.
Any proper male shaves his pubes these days….I don’t know a single guy that doesn’t shave down there.
His last name is “bush”.
Nuff said.
His last name is “bush”.
Nuff said!
Interesting…now I understand your fervent need for rationalization. And no further response from me – you lost me above by the ad hominem “fanatic” and “foreskin fetish” attacks. Involuntary genital cutting will eventually stop; intactivists are just speeding up the process.
I’ll take that as your acceptance that your beliefs have no rational or scientific basis.
Sadly, I suspect you will pop up on the next forum discussing circumcision, repeating the same tired arguments since, as a typical fanatic, you will believe on Wednesday what you believed on Monday regardless of what happens on Tuesday.
Pure self portrait.
Why is so much of your considerable ego caught up in painting others as fanatics and fetishists?
The anti-circumcision people don’t get so much ego gratification from painting you as a genital mutilator, though you are, with your son and yourself. What is it that pleases you so much in demeaning the opposite side, as opposed to respectfully considering that they may simply have a difference of opinion? It is this demeaning lack of respect, that causes others to descend on you, and want to tear you apart, myself included….much more than your idiotic portrayal of yourself as incapable of keeping yourself clean.
Because, unlike me, YOU are trying to force your beliefs on others. And you (Intactivists) do so by spreading exagerations and downright lies as fact.
As it happens this forum has been relatively free from the usual array of intactivist lies, which makes a refreshing change. But since it is largely the same foreskin campaigners posting as always I find it hard to forget your affinity with “post truth” propaganda.
^^ trying to force your beliefs on others. ^^
That sounds like the act of literally carving your opinion about the value of normal genitals into a person who has not consented and can’t resist.
Parents have a duty to act in what they believe to be the best interests of their child.
YOU do not have a duty to impose your beliefs on other parents.
“YOU do not have a duty to impose your beliefs on other parents.”
The fact that you don’t understand the hypocrisy of arguing against people imposing their beliefs on others while simultaneously imposing your beliefs on others about how parents have the right to impose their beliefs on their children is all that needs to be said about your understanding of logic.
Hypocrisy? The day I see you campaigning against parents taking their children to be indoctrinated in church I will take you seriously.
A circumcision inflicts far less harm than telling your child his very thoughts are being monitored and judged.
False analogy. Genital mutilation and ideological indoctrination are not equivalent. Logic 101.
That’s quite the unsubstantiated claim.
False analogy? That depends whether you are genuinely interested in the welfare of the child… or are exclusively focussed on the genitals of other people’s children.
No, it depends entirely on one’s understanding of logic. You refuted nothing, only digressed and further exposed your lack of understanding.
I refuted your claim that parents do not have a duty to act in the best interests of their child. They do. And in making those decisions they should rightly consider not just medical benefits but also perceived social and cultural benefits for their child.
Who are YOU to tell parents they must not act in what they believe to be the best interests of their child? Who are YOU to rule that the advantages they perceive for their child are insignificant?
I never made that claim, nor did you refute it.
There are no medical benefits to infant circumcision, only harm. Any potential medical benefits are hypothetical. You don’t seem to understand the science of what you’re arguing.
I’m a human rights activist. That’s who. For the same reason I’ll tell parents they can’t cut their female infants even though they think it’s “in the best interest of their child”. Assaulting infants is not acceptable just because said infants are your children.
Fortunately your claims are here for all to see.
So here’s the situation : YOU claim circumcision has no medical benefits and YOU claim it causes significant harm… yet the concensus of legally accountable medical bodies around the world is that circumcision has minor health benefits but also insignificant risk. Even those medical bodies which actively oppose circumcision do so on ethical grounds rather than claims of significant harm.
That is why circumcision is legal in every country in the world.
So who to believe? Single issue fanatics such as you who can claim what they like with legal impunity…
Or national medical bodies which are legally bound to consider ALL the evidence and give evidence based advice?
Tough call.
My claims are not false. They are indisputable facts.
That’s not what I claimed. I specifically said that infant circumcision has no medical benefits. It doesn’t. It’s medically unnecessary.
Yes, that’s a fact: circumcision always causes harm. It permanently removes healthy, functional, innervated tissue, replacing them with a scar. This is indisputable. Take an anatomy course.
Not a single medical body in the world endorses infant circumcision. Get educated.
Fortunately your claims are here for all to see.
That a foreskin fanatic such as yourself claims circumcision causes significant harm with no benefit is neither surprising nor evidence of anything other than your bias.
One the one hand we have you. On the other we have fanatics who promote circumcision….
And in the middle, having considered ALL the evidence rather than just that which supports their beliefs, we have the consensus of opinion of the legally accountable medical bodies around the world which is that circumcision has minor health benefits but also insignificant risk of harm. Even those who oppose routine circumcision do so on ethical grounds, not through claims of significant harm.
Sadly it is only the fanatics like yourself who feel they have a right to impose their beliefs on everyone.
Yes, and anyone not blinded by bias will see what I wrote is indisputable fact.
Fact #1: circumcision, 100% of the time, causes permanent damage by permanently removing healthy, functional, innervated tissue.
Fact #2: infant circumcision provides no immediate health benefits, and no medical organization in the world claims otherwise.
Go ahead and provide actual evidence to the contrary (you have yet to do so, unsurprisingly) and, as usual, I’ll expose your ignorance. My hunch, though, is that you’ll continue failing to grasp what is actually being debated here by fallaciously misapplying scientific research to contexts in which it does not apply. You clearly have no proper training in statistics, research or methodology, let alone logic or anatomy.
There sure is no medical benefit to being uncircumcised! Only the ridicule that comes with being the odd man out! Foreskins are disgusting! No normal white American female would go near an uncut guy! If I had a daughter she would be taught of the dangers associated with foreskins! Thankfully I have three circumcised boys ages 1-9…
Odd man out? The majority of men in the world are intact. Circumcised men are the odd ones out.
If by “normal” you mean a superficial, uneducated female, then sure. Enlightened women, on the other hand, know that the foreskin plays an important role during intercourse that benefits both partners, so they actually get to enjoy more pleasurable intercourse rather than the chaffed, broomstick intercourse caused by mutilated genitals.
I doubt your boys will be thankful once they get old enough to learn that you permanently robbed them of sexual pleasure because you’re uneducated and in denial, unless, of course, you try to brainwash them like you’ve been brainwashed, rather than have them learn the scientific reality of what you’ve stolen from them.
My eldest 2 know only minorities and the poor are uncircumcised. All their cousins and peers are circumcised….my boys are normal. There is no mutilation….It is perfecting the imperfect! A flap of useless skin is not a “Body Part”…..foreskins do make great anti-wrinkle cream. My wife and I are in our late 30’s and both are using it to insure we age well……
False. The majority of men in the world are intact, and that fact remains true across racial and socioeconomic groupings. Your eldest two are clearly provincial and ignorant to reality.
Mutilation: “to injure or disfigure by removing or irreparably damaging parts”.
Circumcision: “to permanently remove functional tissue, replacing it with a scar”.
Ergo, circumcision is mutilation. That you don’t understand elementary-level anatomy, evident by your sad ignorance of the functions of the prepuce, does not change reality.
Male circumcision perfects the imperfect. A foreskin is Disgusting, Disease Spreading, Filthy and unsightly flap of useless skin (unless made into anti-wrinkle cream ).
That’s about as egotistical and naïve a statement as I’ve ever seen. Beauty is subjective, and most people in the world find intact male genitalia more beautiful than the mutilated, discolored, scarred, and keratinized eyesore that is the circumcised male genitals. Keep your warped beauty standards away from the genitals of innocent children.
Foreskin is not a “useless” piece of skin. It is functional, innervated, erogenous tissue. Excising it removes those functions. You don’t seem to understand elementary-level human anatomy. Unwashed genitals are unclean, regardless of circumcision status. Chopping off body parts just so you don’t have to wash them is not only stupid, but it’s far grosser than keeping the body parts and washing them. Know reality.
Numb Nuts it has been proven over and over that it does not impact sexual sensation. I love my brown ring….My wife even finds it sexy! I have 3 boys all 9 and under and all three are circumcised. No propr girl in their future would sleep with an uncut animal!
You’re merely exposing how uninformed you are. The scientific literature is indisputably clear: the foreskin, ridged band, and frenulum–all parts that are removed or damaged during circumcision–are functional, innervated, erogenous tissue with important roles in sexual activity. It is logically impossible to remove functional tissue and not have an impact. Go sign up for Anatomy 101 and Logic 101 at your local community college.
I’m not interested in the warped sexual fetishes of you or your wife. If you guys are aroused by mutilated genitals, good for you. But bragging about sexually assaulting your children simply to impose those superficial fetishes upon them is disgusting.
They do make great anti-wrinkle cream….other than that they are pretty useless, disgusting, filthy, disease spreading and very unsightly!
I am so glad we could please you…because pleasing you is what I live for.
“unlike me, YOU are trying to force your beliefs on others.”
Says the hypocrite obnoxiously inserting himself into others’ conversations, inundating the comments section of this very article with his ignorant beliefs. It’s actually quite entertaining going through and watching you continually dig yourself into a deeper and deeper hole with your contradictory statements.
I have translated your post into plain English for you, Coip:
“Please stop. My exagerations and lies can’t stand up to being challenged. ”
There. That’s better.
Another boring and irrelevant digression, a common last-resort strategy by those intellectually bested.
Circumcision will never stop….dream all day long of useless flaps of skin and they will never be in style….
If you removed your cultural blinders and did some research, or talked with some intact men, you might understand the important functions of the prepuce. Unfortunately, some genitally altered men have extreme cognitive dissonance on this issue.
Dude, I don’t know any uncircumcised males and they have no clue what being circumcised is like. Why would I even know anyone that was an uncut animal…..I don’t even have a Mexican maid…
One doesn’t have to go any further than what the “legally accountable” (what a joke) AAP said in 2010 when they launched their FGM initiative hoping to enlarge their genital mutilation industry by a whopping 50%! They were forced to retract their effort in the face of the huge firestorm created by Intactivist opposition to their ethics-less initiative.
“I claim it has minor medical benefit and insignificant risk”
Well then your claims are wrong. Infant genital cutting does not have a “minor medical benefit”. It has an infinitesimal hypothetical benefit, and it’s not an “insignificant” risk; it’s a guaranteed injury that permanently excises health, functional, innervated genital tissue. You seriously need to take some basic logic and anatomy courses.
Let’s see… are my claims wrong or are your claims wrong?
Do I accept your clearly biased opinion as fact, or should I get my information from legally accountable medical bodies…
Tough choice.
Yours are.
Anatomical fact is not a ‘biased opinion’. Only an ignoramus would even write that.
You can go to Dr. Dave’s site and he has hundreds of happy men writing how happy they are to be circumcised…..
ALL circumcisions cause harm- they expose the glans to keritanization, robbing it of sensation. In the newborn the foreskin is adhered and provides a sterile package. In adulthood it robs the male of his full potential for sexual pleasure and his partner of same. P
Nothing more than intactivist propaganda
Braces correct a defect and enhance the functioning of the teeth, restoring them to the way nature intended. Do you see foreskin as a genetic defect? Then how do you explain that all mammals evolved to have one, male and female. It’s there for a reason and there should only be medical intervention to correct something that has gone wrong.
No, d5810. Braces are sometimes used to correct a functional defect but are regularly fitted for purely cosmetic reasons. Since very few people are born with perfectly straight teeth, crooked teeth are, in fact, the way nature intended.
The foreskin is not a genetic defect but it is unnecessary for sexual function. It probably evolved to protect the glans from harm, a function that is no longer important since we no longer run naked through long grass to hunt our dinner.
Labia and clitoral hoods aren’t necessary for sexual function either but it’s still illegal to remove them from infant girls.
More crap to try and justify cutting boys sexual organs. No excuse for child abuse. Leave children’s sexual organs alone. Boys and girls!!
Foreskins are disgusting, filthy, disease spreading and unsightly!
sorry for your smaller less sensitive dried up penis. You’ll spend the rest of your life trying to justify it but you know it’s wrong. Best of luck.
It is the proper way to be…I have 3 boys 9 and under and all three were circumcised! No foreskins in my family!
Sad…poor kids. You have to keep repeating that to convince yourself you are right otherwise look at what you did to your sons. Cutting children’s genitals is perpetuated by denial and illness. You should be treated. Hopefully when your kids have kids they will break the cycle. No excuse for child abuse : no religious, personal or cultural beliefs justifies cutting a child’s genitals. Male or female.
My grandsons will be circumcised, same as all their fore fathers, father, cousins and peers!
BTW you have to a WASP to be a real prep. Keep on wishing.
My father is a WASP and the king Prep Ralph Lauren is Jewish….His real name is Ralph LipSchitz! Rumple Foreskin!
Ralph copied prep not invented it. I will give him credit for doing it well. Jews can’t be preps. Always will be outsiders. Even in the Ivy’s (no matter how many they let in of their own)…on the vineyard …in Nantucket..can aspire but don’t belong. You know it..everyone does.
No filthy foreskinners welcome!
Poor Newport Beach. No perverts or child sexual abusers welcome here. Why don’t you move to Israel? Then you can live amoung your own.
Sorry, No! I was born and raised here and I have a beautiful waterfront home my mother gifted me for my first marriage ( lasted a year, she signed a prenup). I do get out to Newport ,RI for boat shows…..Actually almost bought a house in Bristol, RI. Thanks none the less, but first and foremost I am an American and voted for Trump! If you don’t know Ivanka converted and is Jewish as well as her children. So, Trump has a Jewish Daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren!
I am also a direct descendant from Ashkenazi Diaspora Jewish blood. Many of us Jews have been affected by and are becoming enlightened about the short and long term physical and psychological risks, harms and sexual dysfunctions that can be caused from allowing genital cutting rituals on their sons and are protecting them with a non violent celebration called Bris Shalom. It’s very important to protect your sons from the infant penis cutting and sucking circumcision ritual performed by Rabbi Mohels, called metzitzah b’peh. They invent their own perverted religious rituals based on their own brain damage and perverted sexual desires. falsely claiming it is to protect the infant from the damage they cause. It’s psychotic all the way around.
Brit Shalom is a joke and not recognized at all! My boys are circumcised, just like their cousins and all their peers!
Informed folks can decide what’s a joke. Read and learn. https://www.amazon.com/Celebrating-Brit-Shalom-Lisa-Braver/dp/069235333X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1426654618
“Celebrating Brit Shalom” by Lisa Braver Moss and Rebecca Wald
A disservice to the boy….he will be ridiculed and must be circumcised at 18 or be cut off from his people. He will not be recognised as a Jew. My two eldest go to a Conservative Jewish Day school and we had to supply copies of their Bris Certificates for enrollment. The Brit Shalom is a total crock…..
The two are unaffiliated Jews, total jokes…..laughed at, at the Jewish Book Fair in NYC…
Sure you are…LMFAO
Move to Mexico so you are a normal uncut filthy animal as they are.
Newport Beach is on one off most affluent cities in the USA….I doubt you could afford it…..
I agree, but not in the ignorant sexist view like you, no filthy foreskins of women or men are welcome. That’s right women have foreskins too. Men and women can learn how to keep their exterior reproductive organs hygienic, healthy whole and fully functional without ever causing a need or desire, to cut them apart. Only people with superstitious cognitive dissonance who deny knowledge on function, development and care of their children”s prepuces turn to genital cutting witchdoctor ritual sacrifices on healthy children, boys and girls.
I live in Newport Beach, CA!!!!! I voted Trump who held his Jewish Grandson’s when they had their Bris….Yes, Ivanka is a Jew….she converted!
Fact checking shows that’s fake news that you just made up claiming Trump attended and held his Jewish grandson at the bris.
Sorry Freddy, it is true! He is the grandfather and has attended a number of Jewish festivities……
No you are lying and changing the subject just like Trump. It is true that Trump did not attend his Jewish grandson’s bris, as he felt that campaigning was more important.
I will just call you Freddy Foreskin from now on…..
Reading your posts, you are a homosexual with a foreskin fetish! Leave our boys alone you old Perv!!!!
Children need to be protected from psychopathic genital cutting pedophiles who have sexual desires to touch and cut their reproductive organs. You are showing your desires to sexually attract and mutilate little boys with no remorse.
Circumcision among the Caucasian population of the USA is the NORM! Being uncut is ABNORMAL!
Can’t be uncut and Preppy! You are un-American!
^^ uncut … You are un-American! ^^
About half of US infants are being left intact.
White boys are still being circumcised at a rate greater than 80%! The only reason the rates are down is because all the wetbacks that are breeding and do not circumcise…..They are animals to say the least!
Does anyone care what wetbacks do?
My entire wardrobe is from Ralph…from his polo shirts, shoes and chinos to his Purple Label…..I do have Brooks Brothers as well. Looks good in my Mondial.
I bet you shop at Walmart
You couldn’t afford it..
Mind your own business…..FU anti Freak…..Go play with your filthy, disease spreading foreskin and leave normal white American’s alone….
Haha demented prep wanna be said jew reappears for another round of trump illogica bigoted smears . Sad man and even sadder for your supposed sons. Pathetic excuse for a jew and a man. Run and hide what’s left of your shriveled dried up and scarred little penis with your tiny hands.
Please, you are a filthy disgusting lowlife uncircumcised animal…..like the filthy Mexicans! Small….LMFAO come over and I will show you a real penis, the way God meant it to be. Even you poor Gentile ass…..nothing against Gentiles my father is one (although circumcised before my mother would marry him…he is German). I did get my 8″ from him…a positive having him as a father.
Haha you must have forgotten your medication. This is too fun, I feel a little guilty.
All of you anti’s should be on medication…..Dude you wouldn’t be allowed near my boys, pedophiles like you should be monitored…
mmm..unmedicated sociopathic and delusional preppy dads who are obsessed with cutting off foreskin on kids and who suffer from debilitating cognitive dissonance which drives them to stalk pro human rights advocates are the ones who need to be kept away from kids. You are a sad sad boy
Please…..you are no physician, unlike my mother who is. You are some queer with a foreskin fetish…..sick twisted pedophile! You need to seek help! Don’t you find it strange that you are uncut (odd man out) and preach to others not to circumcise so you feel normal about your pathetic situation…
Actually, you don’t who I am what I am or if I am..hahahaha you poor thing. Get it together man or seriously, get some help. Consider an inpatient program to adjust your meds.
I am sure my brother could find you….he is a total computer nerd…
Man this is fun keep it coming clueless !
Are you dead yet? X1000
You have no idea who I am…you are just a FU uncircumcised dweeb…more than likely you are some Eurotrash…
You should consider offing yourself…no one will miss you or care!
^^ you wouldn’t be allowed near my boy ^^
Because the one who wants to leave the child’s genitals alone is the pedophile? Think, please.
All the antis are Pedophiles…sick twisted queers.
Dude, the only reason you are on here is to sell your FU tugger…Do you actually make money on that BS?
Since you brought it up, yes hundreds of thousands of men are pursuing non-surgical foreskin restoration to undo some of the predictable sexual damage of childhood circumcision. Informed adults can decide for themselves.
So you are making money from brainwashed idiots…
Many of which will get recircumcised when they realize that a foreskin sucks….
And half get recircumcised when they realize a foreskin sucks…
I would say come over, but I don’t like pedophiles….reason I have 3 Glocks, an Uzi and an AR14…..actually have a dozen more…..LMFAO
Poor “doctor”is so uneducated …
“Circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis”. That’s the conclusion of a 2007 study by Sorrells, et al., that tested the fine touch sensitivity of a group of circumcised men and a group of intact (uncircumcised) men using the Semmes-Weinstein monofilament touch-test. The study found that the foreskin has dense concentrations of nerve endings called Meissner’s corpuscles and contains nearly all of the fine-touch nerve endings found in the penis. This type of nerve ending is found in the other erogenous zones and provides erogenous pleasure during sexual activity. Sadly, circumcision removes most if not all of those nerves.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847
Using data from that study, these color-coded diagrams show the areas of penile sensitivity. As you can see, the most sensitive parts of the penis are removed by circumcision:
https://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html#sorrells
Also, the foreskin acts as a linear bearing during intercourse, making the experience more comfortable and pleasurable for women. This site explains how this works:
https://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/
Total nonsense…..I bet you are another uncut anti that feels like the odd man out…
I bet you ate an uncircumcised queer…..
This article downplays the risks of infant circumcision. In the real world, there are a significant number of unqualified operators, medical mistakes, incompetence and other horrors such as the forced circumcision of adults. It’s the abuses that need to be dealt with.
* QUACKS. No unqualified person should circumcise anyone. Those who perform circumcisions without proper qualifications should be prosecuted.
* THE CIRCUMCISER SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OUTCOME. Records should be kept of all circumcisers and all circumcisions. If the operation results in any adverse outcomes, the circumciser should pay for any remedial treatment that might be necessary.
* INCOMPETENT SURGEONS. They should be banned from circumcising. The first botched job should result in a warning; a second botched job should result in the circumciser showing cause why he or she should not be banned for life from performing circumcisions; a third botch should result in an immediate lifetime ban on performing circumcisions.
* DANGEROUS TRADITIONAL PRACTICES such as crude bush circumcisions should be firmly discouraged by public education and a ban should be considered.
* ESSENTIAL PRECAUTIONS No child should be circumcised unless there is a medical report by an independent physician that the person to be circumcised is strong enough to withstand the surgery and is free of any conditions (e.g., bleeding disorders) that make the procedure more dangerous.
* WRITTEN AUTHORISATION. No child should be circumcised without the written permission of both the mother and the father. No adult should be circumcised without his written permission
* INFORMED CONSENT. No older child or adult is to be circumcised without their informed consent.
* FORCED CIRCUMCISION IS SEXUAL ASSAULT Any forced circumcision of an older child or adult should be treated as a sexual assault and the perpetrator should be branded as a sexual offender.
Changes like this won’t stop most medical or ritual circumcisions but they will raise safety standards by dealing with rogue operators, incompetent circumcisers, dangerous traditional practices and criminal assailants.
Well said. I agree completely.
This “doctor” is ignorant. The absence of logic is astounding.
My hand would be easier to clean if I didn’t have an arm, so cut it off when I’m born.
The risk of things like carpal tunnel and tendonitis are more prevalent in people with arms, so cut them off at birth.
Breast cancer is much more common in women with breasts, so cut them off.
Really? Is this what passes for medical advice in Nigeria? In a TEACHING hospital?
There are two problems here. One is that this passes for medical advice in Nigeria.
The other is that the Guardian saw fit to print it for the rest of the world, as fact. I find the second more egregious.
“There is really no value to the foreskin apart from covering the glans penis.”
Spoken by someone with no knowledge of the foreskin. The 2 billion men who still have ours know it’s the best part and we’d fight to keep it. Ownership of all of your own body is a human right.
38 top paediatricians disagree with Dr Boyede.. They are the heads and spokespeople for the paediatric associations of Austria, Britain, Denmark, England, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands, and senior paediatricians in Canada, the Czech Republic, France and Poland. They wrote in the AAP’s journal Pediatrics:
“There is growing consensus among physicians, including those in the United States, that physicians should discourage parents from circumcising their healthy infant boys because non-therapeutic circumcision of underage boys in Western societies has no compelling health benefits, causes postoperative pain, can have serious long-term consequences, constitutes a violation of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child, and conflicts with the Hippocratic oath: primum non nocere: First, do no harm”
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896
I suggest that you read my recent paper on the association between circumcision and cot death/(sudden infant death syndrome [SIDS].)
https://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fneur.2016.00180/full
I suggest you don’t waste your time – just another Intactivist trying to justify his beliefs. The ratio of male to female SIDS is similar in the UK to the US despite very different infant circumcision rates.
So much for the “it was circumcision what done it” hypothesis.
An excellent paper.
Don’t Guardian readers deserve better? This piece is remarkably fact-free. “There is really no value to the foreskin apart from covering the glans penis.”, “Circumcision aids personal hygiene, as it makes it simpler to wash the penis.”, “Circumcision may also result in foreskin problems”, “The TSM involves separation of the foreskin and cutting the extra flesh.” Extra flesh? Really? None of the flesh on my penis is extra.
The Guardian let us all down with this one. I can’t imagine why they would adopt the American view, when even Americans are having a hard time justifying this inappropriate and useless surgery.
Well said!
Inner foreskin consists of highly erogenous tissue. I would consider that valuable but apparently the author of this article does not.
Advantages? I’m sorry, but mutilating an infant’s penis has no “advantage.”
This is the dumbest article I’ve read on this topic, and I’ve read a lot of them…what a joke.
You know the doc is a QUACK when he says “The most common complications associated with circumcision are bleeding and infection.” The most common complication is Erectile DYSFUNCTION! It is about time that an article about cutting baby boy penis parts mentions the sexual LOSS. How is it that doctors do not mention the NERVE endings that will be disconnected from the child’s brain? How can a doctor not know that removing the only mobile erogenous tissue negatively affects sexual pleasure and sexual function. Is it DENIAL? How can this person present an article about cutting off penis parts and leave out the most significant aspect of this odd NON-medical genital mutilation practice.
It would be in the best interest of the CHILD for the circumcision industry and the parents to learn how to properly take care of their children’s undeveloped exterior reproductive organs, so that they will not cause any problems to their patients and children’s exterior reproductive organ parts. There are no benefits from circumcision when the society is properly educated on the neurological functions, the physiological development, and the safe and proper forms of hygiene, care and use of our exterior reproductive organs. The “benefits” are based on the amount of ignorance and superstitions in the medical and religious society.
Republicans are circumcised and the ultra Left are left uncircumcised and out of the norm!
It would be in the best interest of the child and all of humanity if doctors and parents were properly educated on the neurological functions, the physiological development, and the safe and proper care, hygiene, and uses of the children’s exterior reproductive organs. There are no benefits from prepuce excision on healthy infants and children when all the myths, misinformation, and lies are dispelled.
Healthier, Cleaner and Better Looking! A foreskin is disgusting! Even my 9 and 6yo know only Mexicans and the poor are uncircumcised
“There is really no value to the foreskin apart from covering the glans”.
Someone has never taken a basic anatomy class if they’re this ignorant of the functions of the foreskin. What an absolute load of crap this article is. It’s disseminating blatantly false and misleading information in the name of unnecessary and permanently damaging genital mutilation. Geraldine Akutu should be sued for publishing this scientifically inaccurate propaganda that will undoubtedly lead to sexual assault against children. For shame.
.”.. disseminating blatantly false and misleading information… ”
Pots and kettles.
Nope. I state facts. You digress and spew out fallacies. You have yet to refute anything I’ve said, whereas I’ve eviscerated all your nonsense. All you’ve done is expose your ignorance of human anatomy, logic, and ethics. It’s quite sad that you’re so obsessed with ensuring that adults have the legal right to sexually assault children. Despicable.
I’m sorry to have to tell you the opinion of a foreskin fanatics doesn’t constitute “fact”.
The fact that the consensus of opinion of legally accountable medical bodies around the world, who consider all the evidence and not just that which supports their beliefs, is that circumcision has minor health benefits and insignificant risk of harm IS evidence.
Nothing I wrote is an opinion. You clearly have no knowledge of basic male anatomy. Those are facts.
The consensus of opinion of all medical bodies in the world is that the foreskin, ridged band, and frenulum are functional, innervated tissue. You can’t seriously be this obtuse. Let’s simplify it for you.
Answer the following:
1. Do you acknowledge that circumcision permanently removes the prepuce and ridged band of the penis and damages the frenulum? Yes or no?
2. Do you acknowledge that the prepuce, ridged band, and frenulum (a) are functional and (b) innervated? Yes or no?
3. Do you acknowledge that not a single medical organization in the world calls routine infant circumcision ‘medically necessary’? Yes or no?
I see your problem: you are asking the wrong questions… wrong because they are irrelevant.
The relevant questions are:
1. Does circumcision reduce pleasure or cause any other significant harm?
(The opinion of legally accountable medical bodies who consider all the evidence is that it doesn’t – that s*x is just as pleasurable with or without a foreskin.)
2. Are there non-medical benefits to a child from circumcision?
(For children who will grow up in certain cultures and communities there are indeed non-medical benefits.)
3. In the absence of significant harm, do you have a right to impose your opinions and beliefs on other groups in society?
(The answer to that in a free society is, “No”.)
By the way (and in answer to your misguided questions) you do realise that ALL skin is innervated, don’t you?
That s*xual pleasure is NOT proportional to the length of foreskin?
That ALL tissue (including the teeth that are removed from children to fit braces for purely cosmetic reasons) is “functional”?
And that even those medical bodies that oppose routine circumcision do so on ethical grounds, not on the unfounded claims of significant harm you fanatics throw around as “fact”?
1. It is indisputable scientific fact that circumcision, 100% of the time, causes harm. I’m not interested in “opinions”. Only facts matter. Show me a single medical publication that argues that circumcision does not cause any harm. Show me one.
2. Non-medical benefits have no bearing on deciding whether to conduct medically unnecessary surgery on an infant.
3. There is significant harm, making the rest of this point moot.
Yes, I do realize that all skin is innervated. That’s the point. Glad you finally admitted it.
No one claimed that sexual pleasure is proportional to the length of the foreskin. This is a digression.
False analogy. No teeth are routinely and permanently removed from infants.
Yes, because they understand that it is unethical to perform medically unnecessary surgery on infants that permanently removes healthy, functional, innervated tissue from their genitals. Too bad you don’t understand that.
No medical organization, even in high-risk HIV areas, claims that routine infant circumcision is medically necessary. You’re spreading lies.
Any other fallacies you’d like eviscerated?
1. It is indisputable scientific fact that circumcision, 100% of the time, causes harm. I’m not interested in “opinions”. Only facts matter. Show me a single medical publication that argues that circumcision does not cause any harm. Show me one.
********************************************************************
Ooo! A sneaky question, and a straw man argument since I do not claim circumcision causes NO harm, I claim “the risk of circumcision is INSIGNIFICANT and at least balanced by the, albeit minor medical benefits”.
BUT I don’t want you thinking I say this because I lack evidence to support my claims: nothing could be further from the truth… which you would know if you had ever bothered to research the topic you have chosen to lecture parents on.
My problem is deciding which evidence to list since you aren’t very specific. Do you mean evidence that penile sensitivity and satisfaction is unaffected? Do you mean that the risks of surgery are insignificant? Do you mean evidence that the vast majority of circumcised men are satisfied with their status? Or perhaps evidence of the minor medical benefits of circumcision?
I will start with sensitivity and satisfaction. Feel free to ask if you want any more (or, perhaps you could consider doing a bit of research of your own – if you continue to just read Intactivist propaganda sites you will get a very distorted view of reality!
Masters & Johnson, 1966. clinical and neurological testing of the ventral and dorsal surfaces, as well as the glans, and detected no difference in penile sensitivity between circumcised and uncircumcised men
Collins et al., 2002. Study of men circumcised as adults in the US. Found no difference in s*xual drive, er*ction, ej*culation, problem assessment, satisfaction or p*nile sensitivity.
Bleustein et al., 2005. A number of quantitative somatosensory tests (no, I don’t now what they are!) undertaken to evaluate the spectrum of small to large axon nerve fibre function found no difference in sensitivity of the glans p*nis between 43 uncircumcised and 36 neonatally circumcised men.
Masood et al., 2005. Found no difference in er*ctile dysfunction between circumcised and uncircumcised. (NB Out of interest, circumcision isn’t even suggested as a possible factor by any reputable er*ctile dysfunction website.)
Waldinger et al., 2005. Study of 500 couples, found no statistical difference in time to ej*culation between circumcised and uncircumcised. (average around 6 mins)
Kigozi et al., 2008. Randomized controlled trial in Uganda of 4,456 s*xually-experienced men aged 15-49 … 2,210 were circumcised at the start of the trial and 2,246 were not. Found no difference in s*xual satisfaction or er*ctile function over the two years of the study.
Krieger et al., 2008. Large randomised trial. 64% of the men in this trial reported an INCREASE in their p*nile sensitivity and 55% reported greater ease in reaching org*sm two years following adult circumcision.
Payne et al., 2007. Measured sensitivity in flaccid and arous*d state by threshold testing in neonatally cirucumcised men aged 18-45. Found circumcised marginally less sensitive flaccid but found no difference in arous*d state.
AND in response you have Sorrels et al (who were commissioned by that “unbiased” organisation NOCIRC!), Bollinger (the 100 deaths claim that has been rejected by EVERY national medical body, even those opposed to circumcision) and Frisch (that intactivist whose claims that circumcision may cause autism has been rejected by EVERY autism body int he world… even in his home country of Denmark.)
Time for you to backtrack a bit I think.
It is impossible for you to decide the degree of significance of genital cutting for the millions of boys who are subjected to it every year, as sexual pleasure is subjective and variable. Ergo, it is not yours or anyone’s place to impose that on anyone. Case closed.
For every misapplied and misinterpreted study you spammed (seriously, all you accomplished there is that you don’t understand science or generalizability), I can list twenty more that show the opposite. That’s the point: there is no consensus on just how bad the negative effects of genital cutting are. Because there is no consensus, and because it is medically unnecessary, it should never be forced on anyone. That’s the point.
I have a PhD. I know how to research. I’ve critiqued all those flawed studies before and, more so, their misapplication by ignoramuses like you. And I know that there is absolutely no justification for routine infant circumcision.
You have a PhD and yet still dismiss all evidence which doesn’t suppport your beliefs? Really? Which cerial packet did you get that PhD from?
REAL professionals don’t have the luxury of ignoring evidence they don’t like… professionals such as those who work for legally accountable national medical bodies around the world. THEY would be sued and face prison if they gave advice which caused harm because they deliberately ignored evidence.
Unlike unaccoutnable fanatics such as yourself.
And NO such medical body claims circumcision is likely to cause harm anything like Intactivists claim.
(BTW I love your accusation that I “spammed” the list of evidence… when I was responding to YOUR direct request that I provide evidence! You fanatics do make me laugh!)
*******************************
“It is impossible for you to decide the degree of significance of genital cutting for the millions of boys who are subjected to it every year, as sexual pleasure is subjective and variable. Ergo, it is not yours or anyone’s place to impose that on anyone. Case closed.”
>>>
No. It is impossible for YOU to decide the social / cultural / religious benefits to a child from circumcision in their community. The physical conseqences are fairly well known… modern research aside, it is a procedure that has been carried out on literally billions of men over thousands of years!
If you’re going to try to insult people’s intelligence, you might want to ensure you actually spell the insult properly.
Real professionals know the number one rule of being a scientist: be a skeptic. Anyone qualified who has reviewed the literature knows there is no justification for routine infant circumcision. And there isn’t. Your spamming of irrelevant studies exposes you as a poseur, though. You don’t even realize the basic principles of scientific generalizability and applicability nullify the relevance of those oft-critiqued studies to the topic at hand. Even more telling, you fail to understand that for every irrelevant study you vomited out as justification there are a dozen more saying the opposite. And what does every junior high school student who reads that conclude? That there is no consensus, and when there is no consensus you do not perform permanent surgery on children’s genitals.
The only things there are consensus on are the following facts: 1. the foreskin, ridged band, and frenulum are functional, innervated tissue, and 2. circumcision permanently removes them and replaces them with a scar, therefore 3. no medical organization in the world deems it a necessary surgery. Game. Set. Match.
Even more saddening is that every justification you’ve spewed out is used every day by FGM advocates, just as you use them to advocate MGM. It’s despicable how ignorant people are. Yes, we’re all aware that billions of people have been sexually assaulted for thousands of years, it’s just that some of us have been disillusioned.
2. Non-medical benefits have no bearing on deciding whether to conduct medically unnecessary surgery on an infant.
>>>>>
Your opinion, nothing more. So much for your claim to be interested only in facts!
______________
3. There is significant harm, making the rest of this point moot.
>>>>>
Unfortunately for you this is not a claim which is supported by the evidence… which is why, of course, circumcision remains legal in every country in the world (despite the best efforts of intactivists to demonstrate significant harm they have failed and now rely on the ethical argument alone. And ethics are a matter of opinion, not fact.
_____________
Yes, I do realize that all skin is innervated. That’s the point. Glad you finally admitted it.
>>>>>
Since I have never suggested otherwise this is a strange comment to make which smacks of desperation.
______________
No one claimed that s*xual pleasure is proportional to the length of the foreskin. This is a digression.
>>>>>
The phrase you are looking for is “straw man”, not “digression”… but it is neither. Since you claim the loss of innervated skin through circumcision reduces pleasure it follows that more innervated skin (a longer foreskin) would increase pleasure. That is a claim you need to provide evidence for.
_________________
False analogy. No teeth are routinely and permanently removed from infants.
>>>>>
I see. So childhood circumcision is OK? An interesting twist. Since most Muslim boys are circumcised in late childhood (at a similar age to teeth being removed for cosmetic braces), from your argument I must presume this is acceptable to you. Shall we say that circumcision at age 11 is therefore acceptable?
___________________
Yes, because they understand that it is unethical to perform medically unnecessary surgery on infants that permanently removes healthy, functional, innervated tissue from their genitals. Too bad you don’t understand that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
I understand that ethics are based on opinion, not fact. Some people feel it is ethically acceptable to indoctrinate their children in religion by taking them to church, for example. Others do not.
_____________
No medical organization, even in high-risk HIV areas, claims that routine infant circumcision is medically necessary. You’re spreading lies.
>>>>>>
Oh dear. Remember Google is your friend. There are many national medical bodies in high risk HIV areas in Africa which claim routine circumcision is medically advantageous… not to mention UNAIDS and Medicine sans Frontiere.
_______________
Any other fallacies you’d like eviscerated?
>>>>>>
I think the boot is on the other foot, don’t you?!
Arguing that non-medical variables have no bearing on medical procedures is not an opinion. That is basic logic. Also, I’m astonished you don’t realize that that is the same asinine logic that proponents of FGM use to cut baby girls. Do you support that too or are you a hypocrite?
There’s nothing strange about reiterating that the tissue you’re advocating be excised unilaterally is sensitive tissue.
No, I meant what I wrote: digression. Your arguments are overflowing with them. In that vein, that isn’t “my” claim; that is scientific fact: excising innervated tissue removes the ability to feel that tissue. People get pleasure from their foreskin. This is a fact. Ergo, removing it would remove that pleasure.
Cosmetic genital surgery on children is never okay.
Ideological indoctrination is another false analogy. If you don’t understand the difference between ideology and genitals, then you need to head back to junior high school.
You don’t understand the difference between the words “advantageous” and “necessary”? Babies don’t engage in intercourse, so the HIV argument has no bearing on this discussion. That said, I will point out how stupidly dangerous it is promoting circumcision as prophylactic. That you think that is a good idea says everything. People like you who do not understand science should not be in the position to make life-changing decisions for anyone.
Again, any other fallacies you’d like eviscerated?
Apotemnophilia is a psychosis.
No thank you, no time to converse with trash….
We will review and take appropriate action.