Circumcision is a crime now in Germany

[Kittamaru]

Yes. I believe it is.

Just because it is a baby and will not remember that pain from a medically unnecessary surgical procedure does not mean it is not cruel to put that baby in that much pain for something not medically necessary in the first place. While the use of anesthetics is now encouraged to reduce the stress and the pain in newborns, not all are willing to use it and you also need to remember the risks involved. The penis continues to grow and develop after childbirth.

Fair enough - I guess for me, if I had the choice between having it done as an infant and having it done as an adult, I'd prefer to have it done as an infant - faster recovery time, no recollection of the pain, and no awkward calls to the boss explaining why i can't come into work - the obvious problem being, of course, that an infant cannot make that decision.

Informed choice and informed consent.

As an adult, you are doing it with eyes wide open as to the risks involved and most importantly, you are making that decision for yourself. It is your body and your choice. That choice isn't being taken from you by someone who wants your penis to look just like your father's penis, for example.

Indeed, and I can understand the sentiment there. I guess since I've grown up in an environment where it was "always done", it being a choice never really occurred to, nor bothered, me before.

It takes up to 10 days or more to heal. There are very few pain reliever's available for home use for newborns. And babies who are in pain are stressed, which affects their sleeping and most importantly, their feeding. If a newborn loses too much weight or isn't able to feed properly, it opens it up to other complications. It has a flow on effect. Not to mention having to change dressings and keep the area clean for the time it takes to heal, the increased risk of infection to the penis itself.

Having not had a kid myself, and only vague memories of my little brothers birth - are most newborns home within ten days? I would have thought baby and mother would stay in the hospital to recover, especially if any kind of surgery (such as circumcision) had been done?

Yes. There is always a risk with any surgical procedure. With the religious procedure, that risk increases because of the fact that the mouth is used to suck up the blood.

Wait, what? Why? That... the human mouth is disgustingly filthy, especially to a newborn without a developed immune system! I would imagine no "professional" doctor would do such a thing but egads that just sounds like a bad idea all around!

As I noted above, babies have contracted herpes and died as a result of it. Also when you consider that the penis itself continues to develop and the nerve endings in the foreskin and the penis continues to develop after birth, why would you want to take that risk?

That's part of why I was curious - if the nerve endings aren't fully developed, and the penis itself is still growing, wouldn't it be better to have it done before all that is completed? It was my understanding that doing so while the development is ongoing would reduce the chance of any kind of permanent scar tissue; again, that's just the understanding I had looking at it from my limited knowledge on the subject.

There is always a risk of infection or complications, even in surgical procedures that are done correctly.

And remember, these are all preventable and avoidable because unless it is medically necessary, this is all voluntary..

The situation in Africa and the risk to baby boys, boys and men in Africa is even greater.

Mm... all good points... again, I guess it's odd for me because it was just the norm - far as I'm aware, it wasn't even done in our household for religious reasons insomuch as it was, well... just what was done.

The HIV/AIDS studies were flawed from the start. I find the use of the findings from those studies without a warning about how flawed they were, to be dishonest. The risk of penile cancer is minute. And it is exceptionally rare especially in developed countries where we have better hygiene and clean running water. Even without that, the risk is so small that the medical associations around the world do not recommend circumcision to prevent it. They won't even recommend circumcision to reduce the risk of HIV/AIDS. To prevent that, the use of condoms is always better and educating people about using them will always be more effective. As for UTI's, again, rare and it's like less than 1% and it isn't a 100% prevention. Once again, proper hygiene is key and pediatric associations around the world will not recommend circumcision to prevent UTI's. I'd rather wash my kids and teach them about hygiene rather than risk it. If they choose to be circumcised when they are adults, that will be entirely their choice. As a parent, I was not going to take that choice away from them permanently. It is their body and thus, their choice.

Exactly - it seems like it is one of those things that has gained prevalence for one reason or another, and now is continued to be done simply because it is "normal" to be done. Hardly a good reason to continue with something if there is no actual medical validation for doing so.

There will be arguments for and against, there is for just about anything. But frankly, people seem to believe that because it is their child, restrictions on what they can do to their children is infringing on what many seem to believe is their god given right. There is a reason why pediatric and medical associations around the world do not recommend it. I think ignoring the concerns of doctors for purely cosmetic reasons or religious and cultural reasons is insane personally. I personally do not understand how or why parents would take such risks with their newborns for something that is not medically necessary. Public hospitals here will not even do them if it is not medically necessary and they will exhaust all other options before opting for surgery. Many private hospitals are also the same.

Indeed - it is odd what people will do for "cosmetic" reasons... I mean, we have newborn "optional" surgery (as we are discussing now), and then there's:

Cultural "norms" are powerful things I guess... *shakes head*

For more crazy stuff people do for "beauty":

http://www.oddee.com/item_98514.aspx

 

[Kittamaru]

His bizarre obsession with rough sex aside, in regards to the history of circumcision in the West and the US, as well as other English speaking countries, he isn't that far off.. One of the main reasons circumcision became so popular in the West was because it was believed to prevent masturbation. It was the same reasons given such as those given to encourage female circumcision and even hysterectomy's for women. The reality is that male circumcision became popular originally because people were concerned that men (and women) were too sexual and suffered from "masturbatory insanity".

Circumcision in English-speaking countries arose in a climate of negative attitudes towards sex, especially concerning masturbation. In her 1978 article The Ritual of Circumcision,[50] Karen Erickson Paige writes: "The current medical rationale for circumcision developed after the operation was in wide practice. The original reason for the surgical removal of the foreskin, or prepuce, was to control 'masturbatory insanity' – the range of mental disorders that people believed were caused by the 'polluting' practice of 'self-abuse.'"


"Self-abuse" was a term commonly used to describe masturbation in the 19th century. According to Paige, "treatments ranged from diet, moral exhortations, hydrotherapy, and marriage, to such drastic measures as surgery, physical restraints, frights, and punishment. Some doctors recommended covering the penis with plaster of Paris, leather, or rubber; cauterization; making boys wear chastity belts or spiked rings; and in extreme cases, castration." Paige details how circumcision became popular as a masturbation remedy:

In the 1890s, it became a popular technique to prevent, or cure, masturbatory insanity. In 1891 the president of the Royal College of Surgeons of England published On Circumcision as Preventive of Masturbation, and two years later another British doctor wrote Circumcision: Its Advantages and How to Perform It, which listed the reasons for removing the "vestigial" prepuce. Evidently the foreskin could cause "nocturnal incontinence," hysteria, epilepsy, and irritation that might "give rise to erotic stimulation and, consequently, masturbation." Another physician, P.C. Remondino, added that "circumcision is like a substantial and well-secured life annuity ... it insures better health, greater capacity for labor, longer life, less nervousness, sickness, loss of time, and less doctor bills." No wonder it became a popular remedy.[50]​

At the same time circumcisions were advocated on men, clitoridectomies (removal of the clitoris) were also performed for the same reason (to treat female masturbators). The US "Orificial Surgery Society" for female "circumcision" operated until 1925, and clitoridectomies and infibulations would continue to be advocated by some through the 1930s. As late as 1936, L. E. Holt, an author of pediatric textbooks, advocated male and female circumcision as a treatment for masturbation.[50]


One of the leading advocates of circumcision was John Harvey Kellogg. He advocated the consumption of Kellogg's corn flakes to prevent masturbation, and he believed that circumcision would be an effective way to eliminate masturbation in males.

Covering the organs with a cage has been practiced with entire success. A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed. If any attempt is made to watch the child, he should be so carefully surrounded by vigilance that he cannot possibly transgress without detection. If he is only partially watched, he soon learns to elude observation, and thus the effect is only to make him cunning in his vice.​

Robert Darby (2003), writing in the Medical Journal of Australia, noted that some 19th-century circumcision advocates—and their opponents—believed that the foreskin was sexually sensitive:

In the 19th century the role of the foreskin in erotic sensation was well understood by physicians who wanted to cut it off precisely because they considered it the major factor leading boys to masturbation. The Victorian physician and venereologist William Acton (1814–1875) damned it as "a source of serious mischief", and most of his contemporaries concurred. Both opponents and supporters of circumcision agreed that the significant role the foreskin played in sexual response was the main reason why it should be either left in place or removed. William Hammond, a Professor of Mind in New York in the late 19th century, commented that "circumcision, when performed in early life, generally lessens the voluptuous sensations of sexual intercourse", and both he and Acton considered the foreskin necessary for optimal sexual function, especially in old age. Jonathan Hutchinson, English surgeon and pathologist (1828–1913), and many others, thought this was the main reason why it should be excised.[6]​

Mainstream pediatric manuals continued to recommend circumcision as a deterrent against masturbation until the 1950s.[6]

​

... what... the actual fuck...?

I really don't know what to say to all of that... that's simply terrifying. To think, people are so afraid of their own sexuality, their own desires, as to feel it necessary to inflict that upon others... that's just horrific.

 

[Bells]

... what... the actual fuck...?

I really don't know what to say to all of that... that's simply terrifying. To think, people are so afraid of their own sexuality, their own desires, as to feel it necessary to inflict that upon others... that's just horrific.

I think what is scarier is that circumcisions never really went away after it became so popular because people thought it was a cure for masturbatory insanity.. It is now part of culture in many places in the West. Adopted for moronic reasons and it never really went away again even after people realised that masturbation was not unnatural or perverted.

As opposed to many other cultural and societal norms which have been outlawed (such as binding feet), that one still lingers. And what is worse is that the medical reasons came after it became so widely accepted for stopping people from diddling themselves or enjoying sex.

 

[Kittamaru]

You're right... that is absolutely terrifying. We've let it become so ingrained in our society that, for many people, we don't think twice about it...

 

[madethesame]

Dude, seriously, less porn. No, really, half of your posts here constitutes comments about rough sex and frankly bizarre claims about men and women. Not to mention it's as if you are literally pulling things out of your backside with your incorrect comments about men, women and sex.

Watch less porn.

Dear I am a young man, therefore I encounter specific sexual talks more than the elders. In some conversation the few" guys discuss their bizarre fantasies that will make you sick and it is because of pornography and misogyny that gives false ideas.

 

[madethesame]

Uh huh... once again, you are missing the key point: Why is the guy ramming the woman like a crack rabbit on a pogo stick? It sounds like that is a case of "bad sex". The funny thing is, though, the way you said it this time almost makes it sound like a case FOR circumcision - less chance of the guy getting injured during intercourse.

And it's "proven" that men lose interest in sex after ejaculation? Strange how so many of your claims don't seem to apply to me and my experiences... granted, I tend to make a point of ensuring she is satisfied before pursuing my own release, so maybe I'm just strange.

I don't mean that a experienced person like you would do this. Their are lot of people I know who can go that way.
I watch porn for not any special sexual fetishes but for some observations and it is not a every day phenomena.

 

[Bells]

You're right... that is absolutely terrifying. We've let it become so ingrained in our society that, for many people, we don't think twice about it...

No. And that is because often, people do it to their children because it was done to them. So they look the same.

It has become a tradition.

 

[madethesame]

Uh huh... once again, you are missing the key point: Why is the guy ramming the woman like a crack rabbit on a pogo stick? It sounds like that is a case of "bad sex". The funny thing is, though, the way you said it this time almost makes it sound like a case FOR circumcision - less chance of the guy getting injured during intercourse.

And it's "proven" that men lose interest in sex after ejaculation? Strange how so many of your claims don't seem to apply to me and my experiences... granted, I tend to make a point of ensuring she is satisfied before pursuing my own release, so maybe I'm just strange.

I should have written most men loose interest while few don't loose, it depends upon the conditions.

 

[Doreen]

This will conflict with the emerging medical consensus that circumcision is the most effective method discovered so far to halt the HIV/AIDS epidemic. It's been working miracles in Africa. Not circumcising your little boy could be construed as similar to not getting him vaccinated against poliomyelitis: Failure to comply with public health measures.

Extreme trauma from male circumcision causes damage to areas of brain

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/048907_male_circumcision_brain_damage_child_abuse.html#ixzz3zrpcuTnN

 

[timojin]

Extreme trauma from male circumcision causes damage to areas of brain

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/048907_male_circumcision_brain_damage_child_abuse.html#ixzz3zrpcuTnN

All you circumcised are mentally ill. . It sort unfortunately that have passed over 3000 years to find out .
Jewish woman are not circumcised no wonder they are more strict then their counterpart Muslim women which are mild .

 

[Bowser]

It's my understanding that circumcision is hygienic. It has never stood in the way of sexual desire as far as I can tell. As far as traumatizing the recipient, I can't recall the episode.

 

[pjdude1219]

It's my understanding that circumcision is hygienic. It has never stood in the way of sexual desire as far as I can tell. As far as traumatizing the recipient, I can't recall the episode.

https://search.yahoo.com/search;_yl...a-gp-search&fr=mcafee&type=C211US977D20151121

this should clear those misconceptions right up for you

 

[sculptor]

Each year 100,000 Jewish and 10 million Muslim circumcisions are performed, while in Africa the number is 9 million. Circumcision predates Islam and Judaism.

 

[joepistole]

I think what is scarier is that circumcisions never really went away after it became so popular because people thought it was a cure for masturbatory insanity.

Actually, there are many reasons why people have practiced circumcision. Masturbation was just one. Circumcision was thought to prevent a host of diseases. It was recommended by physicians for those reasons. Circumcision wasn't common before physicians began recommending it in the late 19th century. But the practice of circumcision goes back eons. It was done for religious reasons and that's still the case to this day. So there just isn't one reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Middle_East.2C_Africa_and_Europe

 

[Bells]

Err okay Joe.

You do realise that I had covered pretty much all of that in the many previous pages a couple of years ago, yes? That taking one post, out of context of the many many other posts I made in this thread just seems a tad strange.. Yes?

 

[Bowser]

this should clear those misconceptions right up for you

http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/circumcision

WebMD might be a better source, don't you think?

 

[joepistole]

Err okay Joe.

You do realise that I had covered pretty much all of that in the many previous pages a couple of years ago, yes? That taking one post, out of context of the many many other posts I made in this thread just seems a tad strange.. Yes?

Err okay Bells, you are being more than a little disingenuous. It's very evident from your conversation you chose to hype the salacious rather than report the truth. Circumcision didn't become popular because of some mass masturbation phobia. It became popular because physicians believed it was more hygienic. For decades now, people have been debating he hygienic benefits of circumcision. It was an issue when my son was born about 28 years ago. When my wife and I faced the issue, masturbation wasn't even discussed. The notion is totally absurd. Until now, I have never read or heard anyone associate masturbation with circumcision.

The reason circumcisions became popular and remained popular was because they were believed to be hygienic. Physicians told people that was the case for more than a century. Now that story is changing or at least being questioned. But in any case, it has absolutely nothing to do with any fear of masturbation.

Do you not remember writing, " I think what is scarier is that circumcisions never really went away after it became so popular because people thought it was a cure for masturbatory insanity."

 

[pjdude1219]

Err okay Bells, you are being more than a little disingenuous.

no your just being a self important dick again joe.

It's very evident from your conversation you chose to hype the salacious rather than report the truth. Circumcision didn't become popular because of some mass masturbation phobia.

really than why are there several published articles in medical journals stating that?

It became popular because physicians believed it was more hygienic.

that came latter.

For decades now, people have been debating he hygienic benefits of circumcision. It was an issue when my son was born about 28 years ago. When my wife and I faced the issue, masturbation wasn't even discussed. The notion is totally absurd.

and pray tell what does the discussion now have to do with it came it about? another extremely bad argument made by you based on personal experiences and biases rather than facts.

Do you not remember writing, " I think what is scarier is that circumcisions never really went away after it became so popular because people thought it was a cure for masturbatory insanity."

which is correct. go look up kellog

 

[joepistole]

no your just being a self important dick again joe. really than why are there several published articles in medical journals stating that? that came latter. and pray tell what does the discussion now have to do with it came it about? another extremely bad argument made by you based on personal experiences and biases rather than facts.


which is correct. go look up kellog

LOL...well you can always be counted on for illogical argument, personal attacks, name calling and misinformation. I suggest you read my previous reference PJ.

 

[Bells]

Err okay Bells, you are being disingenuous. It's very evidence from your conversation you chose to hype the salacious rather than report the truth. Circumcision didn't become popular because of some mass masturbation phobia. It became popular because physicians believed it was more hygienic.

Do you not remember writing, " I think what is scarier is that circumcisions never really went away after it became so popular because people thought it was a cure for masturbatory insanity."

Which you have taken out of context of all my other posts in this thread on the subject at hand.

If you wish to not set up strawman's and take my posts out of context, my comments about circumcision start from around page 4-5 in this thread. If you had bothered to read the posts, you'd see that I addressed the point you are trying to make by taking my post out of context, back in post number 91.. On page 5. In fact, in that post, back in 2012, I address the history of circumcision and how it became so common among non-religious groups and the doctors who took up the practice and why they did so.. It wasn't just religious. They did so for a variety of reasons, including - and there is a lot of text on this - to cure masturbation which was considered to be a mental disorder. And by page 6, we were discussing scientific studies about the spread of HIV and other STD's.. But please, carry on ignoring what has already been said and taking my posts completely out of context of everything else I had said in this thread.

A word of advice, joepistole, when you enter a thread a few years old, and you have not bothered to read past the last page to see what had been said several years ago and by whom, it just makes you look silly and lazy.