[Forensicgirl52]

Originally Posted by quetza ↗

I'm actually gonna throw up one more post to make my stance even more clear for you, lest you fire back with more definitions and facts. first, it doesnt matter how rare penile cancer is, there have been some studies that show circumcision can reduce the risk. that is where the medical community gets the idea that it can help which is one of the reasons its still an acceptable procedure (ONE of the reasons, not THE reason)
second, I do not personally like the idea of circumcision. i think it is rather cruel and extremely painful for those little guys but guess what, my personal opinion doenst have anything to do with what people can request. just because i do not agree with something on a personal level doesnt mean i cant provide the service. we live in a world of boards, committees, peer-reviewed journals, studies, and evidence based medicine and that is where the medical community gets its opinion and delegates what should and should not be done. if you want to argue, argue with them because until they say something is not good it wont be considered not good.

Yes, how rare penile cancer is DOES matter. If circumcision causes more complications than the cases of cancer it prevents, it is not valid because the harm done outweighs any benefit. Since penile cancer is NOT prevented by circumcision any way, then the benefits are 0 and the procedure is unjustified.

Maybe the American Cancer Society will convince you:

The American Cancer Society's website includes this information:

"Can penile cancer be prevented?

The large variations in penile cancer rates throughout the world strongly suggest that penile cancer is a preventable disease. The best way to reduce the risk of penile cancer is to avoid known risk factors whenever possible (see the section, "What are the risk factors for penile cancer?").

In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. But in many of those studies, the protective effect of circumcision was no longer seen after factors like smegma and phimosis were taken into account.

Most public health researchers believe that the risk of penile cancer is low among uncircumcised men without known risk factors living in the United States. Men who wish to lower their risk of penile cancer can do so by avoiding HPV infection and not smoking. Those who aren't circumcised can also lower their risk of penile cancer by practicing good hygiene. Most experts agree that circumcision should not be recommended solely as a way to prevent penile cancer."

Medical boards etc are not the be all and end all of what is right. Circumcision forced on infants and children violates their human rights (specifically the right to bodily autonomy/security of the person). Circumcision is morally and ethically wrong.

[Forensicgirl52]

Originally Posted by CuriousOne ↗

So to you, circumcised penises equal dried up and scarred? Not sure what penises you've been looking at...

All I'm saying is I'm glad my man is circumcised. Physically it's more attractive. Get off your soapbox and chill out.

Did you even look at the link I sent you? All circumcised penises have a scar. All of them are dried out and keratinized (calloused). The surface of the glans is a mucous membrane. From the link I sent you since you clearly didn't bother to actually read it but instead want to remain willfully ignorant:

"If we surgically amputate the eyelids or fingernails, we will face the repercussions of making an organ that was designed to be internal, external. In order to survive this damage, the organ must adapt. To do so, a variety of features will change (both immediately, and progressively over the years): pH will be altered, temperature will no longer remain stable in that organ, moisture and lubrication levels will not be maintained, leading to dryness and potential chapping, antibodies and healthy microflora that previously served to protect will cease to exist, and callusing (the build-up of multiple hardened layers of skin) will take place. Our body may attempt to heal itself by forming skin bridges or re-adhesions over the amputation site. Our eyeballs and fingertips would become thick, dry, discolored, and no longer function in the manner they were designed to. "

Your personal opinion in no way justifies circumcising infants. And you're the one that replied in the first place. Maybe next time you should just keep scrolling.

[Forensicgirl52]

Originally Posted by DonB ↗

Another one. Forensicgirl52 must have mobilized her friends from the Cult Of The Foreskin.

I haven't mobilized anyone, actually. Those of us who are actually educated on this topic can see circumcision for the lie that it is, and so we speak out against it. If we were protecting girls no-one would oppose that, so why are boys genitals less valuable and less deserving of protection?

[Forensicgirl52]

Originally Posted by CuriousOne ↗

So to you, circumcised penises equal dried up and scarred? Not sure what penises you've been looking at...

All I'm saying is I'm glad my man is circumcised. Physically it's more attractive. Get off your soapbox and chill out.

Here is a good comparison of a normal penis and one that has been circumcised, since you clearly didn't look at the actual link:

[Forensicgirl52]

Originally Posted by Nuclearmilk ↗

The glans is naturally sensitive, and the foreskin moisturizes it and protects it. When the foreskin is removed, the glans has to harden with scar tissue to protect it from the elements, otherwise most circumcised men wouldn't be able to walk around without constant discomfort from their penises rubbing against their pants.

And you do realise the foreskin can be contracted right? Meaning uncircumcised guys can look like circumcised guys for you during sexy times, unless you like constantly staring at penises when not doing anything sexual?

Exactly! Thank you!

[Forensicgirl52]

Originally Posted by honeysprite ↗

I did my homework and I don't remember seeing anything about male circumcision being done to reduce pleasure so, please share your resources. (Yes, I'm looking for more than one)

I'm not sorry I had my son circumcised. In addition to his father, I consulted other men in my life (including my own father) and not a single one of them indicated or thought they were missing anything by being circumcised. They all felt you don't miss something you don't remember having.

Then maybe you were looking in the wrong places, since the history of medical circumcision is well documented. Circumcision became popular as a medical procedure in the Victorian era because it was erroneously believed it prevented masturbation. However, it's effects on sexual pleasure were known well before that:

"Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides), 12th Century

"With regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible.

It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility for everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for the member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally.

The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened.

The sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: "It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him." In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision. Who first began to perform this act, if not Abraham, who was celebrated for his chastity."

Moses ben Maimon, Guide of the perplexed, Part III, Chapter 49

Moses ben Maimon (1135-1204) was an important Jewish physician, philosopher and theologian."

"William Harvey, 17th Century

"The circumcised are affected with less pleasure in coitus because the membrane is thickened and sensation blunted."

Quoted in David Gollaher, Circumcision: A history of the world's most controversial surgery, New York, Basic Books, 2000, p. 113

William Harvey (1578-1657) was the English scientist and physician who discovered the circulation of the blood."

A typical Victorian sexually prudish doctor:

"A cure for masturbation, 1867

"A Jewish surgeon informs us that the practice in question [masturbation] is virtually unknown in Jewish schools. It is well known that the removal of the foreskin diminishes the temptation and the facility. The skin of the glans becomes harder and less sensitive. The learned Dr Copland and many other writers express regret that circumcision was ever discontinued. … we have known masturbation effected habitually by a sickly child of three; but … eczema and ascarides were the exciting causes. Nevertheless, the removal of the prepuce effected a complete cure."

Medical Times and Gazette (London), 1867 (1), 19 January, p. 79"


Considering that circumcision had never been practised in Britain before the 1850s, the reference to its being "discontinued" is puzzling. Ascarides are a type of worm which can inhabit the rectum."

The above all come from this page:
http://www.historyofcircumcision.net...tpage&Itemid=1
Just choose "Quotes" from the side menu.

Quotes from John Harvey Kellogg on masturbation and circumcision:
http://www.whale.to/a/john_harvey.html

More quotes here:
http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/

And if you blinded a newborn, they wouldn't know what it's like to see. That in no way justifies doing so, just like the fact that the men you spoke to don't know what they are missing in no way justifies depriving your son of his foreskin.

[honeysprite]

Originally Posted by Forensicgirl52 ↗

Then maybe you were looking in the wrong places, since the history of medical circumcision is well documented. Circumcision became popular as a medical procedure in the Victorian era because it was erroneously believed it prevented masturbation. However, it's effects on sexual pleasure were known well before that:

"Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides), 12th Century

"With regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible.

It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility for everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for the member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally.

The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened.

The sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: "It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him." In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision. Who first began to perform this act, if not Abraham, who was celebrated for his chastity."

Moses ben Maimon, Guide of the perplexed, Part III, Chapter 49

Moses ben Maimon (1135-1204) was an important Jewish physician, philosopher and theologian."

"William Harvey, 17th Century
"The circumcised are affected with less pleasure in coitus because the membrane is thickened and sensation blunted."

Quoted in David Gollaher, Circumcision: A history of the world's most controversial surgery, New York, Basic Books, 2000, p. 113

William Harvey (1578-1657) was the English scientist and physician who discovered the circulation of the blood."

A typical Victorian sexually prudish doctor:

"A cure for masturbation, 1867

"A Jewish surgeon informs us that the practice in question [masturbation] is virtually unknown in Jewish schools. It is well known that the removal of the foreskin diminishes the temptation and the facility. The skin of the glans becomes harder and less sensitive. The learned Dr Copland and many other writers express regret that circumcision was ever discontinued. … we have known masturbation effected habitually by a sickly child of three; but … eczema and ascarides were the exciting causes. Nevertheless, the removal of the prepuce effected a complete cure."

Medical Times and Gazette (London), 1867 (1), 19 January, p. 79"


Considering that circumcision had never been practised in Britain before the 1850s, the reference to its being "discontinued" is puzzling. Ascarides are a type of worm which can inhabit the rectum."

The above all come from this page:
http://www.historyofcircumcision.net...tpage&Itemid=1
Just choose "Quotes" from the side menu.

Quotes from John Harvey Kellogg on masturbation and circumcision:
http://www.whale.to/a/john_harvey.html

More quotes here:
http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/

And if you blinded a newborn, they wouldn't know what it's like to see. That in no way justifies doing so, just like the fact that the men you spoke to don't know what they are missing in no way justifies depriving your son of his foreskin.

No matter how over zealous you are and how much we disagree, I believe you mean well but BLINDNESS <> Circumcision


Based on all of those current dates I've changed my mind completely...

If I'm allowed to use opinions and medical information that old I'm going to start giving/using the following medical treatments:

• Soothing Syrup with the active ingredients..."morphin sulphate, chloroform, morphine hydrochloride, codeine, heroin, powdered opium, cannabis indica"
• Mercury for scrapes, bruises or constipation
• Heroin for cough suppression
• Bloodletting when he's not feeling well

I used the clearly outdated and uneducated information provided by WHO and AAP (what would they know right?! ) and real people to make my decision which is done and I'd do it again.

As I stated before:

Arguing circumcision is like arguing abortion; people aren't going to change their opinions because you don’t agree and you say they should.

So, I'm calling the game and moving on.

[ChristySD]

Those of you who know me on here know I will give my medical opinions, but this one I am not touching (pardon the pun Shaz!). I briefly glanced at the ranting by the OP and got a good chuckle, needless to say. "Mutilation", "barbaric"........I get a good laugh every time I hear propoganda such as this. Infections and gangrene are consequences of a circumcision that is, usually (I use this caveat) not properly cared for. This is so with ANY surgical procedure, minor or major. Do not take a smattering of quotes from different medical groups and form your own opinions, then say it is fact. It is "practicing" medicine. As much as I hold my peers at the WHO and AMA in esteem, they are not always correct, that is why it is called medical OPINION. As always my friends, hope this helps.

[ChristySD]

One thing I just cannot help myself on.......**hee hee** The website where the OP's link originated from is the "Ataahua Shop". "Ataahua" in Maori means "beautiful". **HEE HEE** Take a look at Maori tatoos. Want to talk about PAIN?!?! Let us start THERE.......... I am such an epic shit stirrer......I love you guys!

[Forensicgirl52]

Originally Posted by honeysprite ↗

No matter how over zealous you are and how much we disagree, I believe you mean well but BLINDNESS <> Circumcision


Based on all of those current dates I've changed my mind completely...

If I'm allowed to use opinions and medical information that old I'm going to start giving/using the following medical treatments:

• Soothing Syrup with the active ingredients..."morphin sulphate, chloroform, morphine hydrochloride, codeine, heroin, powdered opium, cannabis indica"
• Mercury for scrapes, bruises or constipation
• Heroin for cough suppression
• Bloodletting when he's not feeling well

I used the clearly outdated and uneducated information provided by WHO and AAP (what would they know right?! ) and real people to make my decision which is done and I'd do it again.

As I stated before: So, I'm calling the game and moving on.

The APP and the WHO are not reliable sources regarding circumcision. If you chose to believe them then you clearly DID NOT RESEARCH.

And where did I say blindness and circumcision were the same? I pointed out that the "I don't know any different" excuse to justify circumcision is invalid and that the same excuse could be used to justify any sort of harm inflicted on a baby including blinding them.