Michael Gerson: The crime of circumcision - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-the-crime-of-circumcision/2012/07/05/gJQAvNvPQW_story.html)

This article got me to thinking; why do we consider it 'genital mutilation' and wrong when it happens to girls and religious freedom when it is done to boys?

I used to reflexively accent it because I got snipped at birth. However, that article got me to thinking about it. It's ####ing barbaric.

Discuss.

:popcorn:

You guys need to step up your activism. Women ##### and moan about everything, same for gays and blacks. Men....eh. They just get their #### snipped and move on with life.

removing the foreskin from a penis is not the same as removing a clietrous

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/9696353.stm

In the rural areas of Egypt, in Upper Egypt, however there is scant respect for the law. You hear the words "tradition", "custom", "honour" uttered like a mantra when people justify their decision to circumcise their daughters.

The belief there is that it is the female who is sexually rampant and that her sexual desire must be arrested at a young age, before she can disgrace the family.

If we tell a police officer in the local station, we will be reporting to an officer who believes in it and is probably doing it to his own daughters

Nivine Rasmi, anti-FGM campaigner
"It is important that she loses that part of her body that awakes sexual desire. If not, she may play with herself or ask a boy to touch this part for her, not specifically a stranger, but one of her cousins for instance, and she might enjoy it," Olla told me. "When she feels the pain of it she will be more careful about this part.




NOT EVEN REMOTELY THE SAME AS MALE CIRCUMCISION

..and I think this thread belongs in the religion forum...

Wirelessly posted

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/9696353.stm

In the rural areas of Egypt, in Upper Egypt, however there is scant respect for the law. You hear the words "tradition", "custom", "honour" uttered like a mantra when people justify their decision to circumcise their daughters.

The belief there is that it is the female who is sexually rampant and that her sexual desire must be arrested at a young age, before she can disgrace the family.

If we tell a police officer in the local station, we will be reporting to an officer who believes in it and is probably doing it to his own daughters

Nivine Rasmi, anti-FGM campaigner
"It is important that she loses that part of her body that awakes sexual desire. If not, she may play with herself or ask a boy to touch this part for her, not specifically a stranger, but one of her cousins for instance, and she might enjoy it," Olla told me. "When she feels the pain of it she will be more careful about this part.




NOT EVEN REMOTELY THE SAME AS MALE CIRCUMCISION

..and I think this thread belongs in the religion forum...

Why, it's not usually a religious choice.

..and I think this thread belongs in the religion forum...

I started there but, we oppose FGM on human rights grounds though it is a religious barbarity and support circumcision on religious grounds and argue it is not barbaric so, it IS a political issue, yes?

I started there but, we oppose FGM on human rights grounds though it is a religious barbarity and support circumcision on religious grounds and argue it is not barbaric so, it IS a political issue, yes?

they are both still religious issues (or even traditions/cultural issues)... just because there is a law against FGM doesn't mean people will stop doing it.

they are both still religious issues (or even traditions/cultural issues)... just because there is a law against FGM doesn't mean people will stop doing it.

Why do we accept one and not the other? It seems clear this is no reason to do it but religion. :popcorn:

Larry

did you forget the sarcasm tag


you do not seriously believe one is equal to the other :popcorn:

you do not seriously believe one is equal to the other

Why not?

Larry

did you forget the sarcasm tag


you do not seriously believe one is equal to the other :popcorn:

It seems obvious that FGM is done to limit pleasure to women, right? And that males are clipped for religious reasons and as a practical way to identify oneself. Some studies claim it also limits sensations for males.

My issue is why do we accept male circumcision? It is, clearly, barbaric.

Why not?



I guess if you had it removed at birth, you wouldn't be missing it ...... except in discussions around the ladies room

I guess if you had it removed at birth, you wouldn't be missing it ...... except in discussions around the ladies room

Right. So what's the difference if it's a boy or girl? Both are genital mutilation, and both are done (or at least originated) for religious reasons. We have come to accept circumcision as normal because it's been done for so long, but that doesn't mean it isn't mutilation.

Why not?

Both genital mutilation. Both for religious reasons.

Sound kinda similar to me.

One, we consider outrageous, the other, religious freedom.

I mean, who was the first ####tard who decided it would be a good idea to take a brand new baby boy and start chopping up his min junk??? "This is a GOOD thing!"

:jameo:

Why not a ####ing tat or a piercing? It just seems more and more as I age, we readily condemn things 'other' people do while at the same time excusing ####ed up #### we do as 'good' or 'right'.

fine then


4000 years of Jewish Tradition are Politically Incorrect as well as 2000 yrs of Christianity

I mean, who was the first ####tard who decided it would be a good idea to take a brand new baby boy and start chopping up his min junk??? "This is a GOOD thing!"





Religious male circumcision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_male_circumcision)

fine then


4000 years of Jewish Tradition are Politically Incorrect as well as 2000 yrs of Christianity

??? Supporting circumcision is politically correct. Opposing FGM is PC.

I'm interested in why. It's rather disheartening to think it's as simple as what we do is good. What they do is bad. I used to think circumcision was just fine BECAUSE I AM and now, I'm just looking at it and thinking, why is it 'good'? Because that's what we've always done??? The Gerson piece got me to a' thinkin'.

Religious male circumcision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_male_circumcision)

OK. Now I leanrt something. I thought Jews did it to differentiate themselves from Muslims.

from what I have read, getting clipped is cleaner, more hygienic ie low maintenance


where do you thing the term Dick Cheese comes from


some luser not keeping his johnson clean

OK. Now I leanrt something. I thought Jews did it to differentiate themselves from Muslims.



I did not think Moslems did 'clipping' either ....... Jews did it to set themselves apart from the heathens around them


remember Islam did not come around until 600 or so AD

fine then


4000 years of Jewish Tradition are Politically Incorrect as well as 2000 yrs of Christianity

How long do you suppose FGM has been practiced? I'll wait while you google....

from what I have read, getting clipped is cleaner, more hygienic ie low maintenance


where do you thing the term Dick Cheese comes from


some luser not keeping his johnson clean

So? I'd gather a wuss is easier to keep clean as well with less skin. My ass would be easier to keep clean with no butt cheeks.

From what I read there are as many minor benefits as there are minor negatives. So, I mean, come on. Clip, clip! :jameo:

from what I have read, getting clipped is cleaner, more hygienic ie low maintenance


where do you thing the term Dick Cheese comes from


some luser not keeping his johnson clean

Im sure it was back in the day when people were lucky to get one bath a year. If something like that makes you think its unclean then the person doesnt bathe enough to begin with.

Im sure it was back in the day when people were lucky to get one bath a year. If something like that makes you think its unclean then the person doesnt bathe enough to begin with.

There is zero reasons to be circumcised. As far as I know the only religion that requires it is the Jewish faith.

When deciding my son's fate, my wife was concerned about why it was needed and she ask me if my son would have issues with him having a Johnson that is different than mine. I looked at her and said I never saw my dads, so why would he see mine.

Some odd reason she had this ideal that men are looking at each other (I guess that is what women do?)

After researching the question why would I want to be circumcised, I had no valid reason. We discussed this awhile back and the ladies piped in about if it made a difference to them. I think someone made a comment about the only difference is that one has a sweater and one does not.

So, in summary, why must you cut? It is crazy that we want to do that.

There is zero reasons to be circumcised. As far as I know the only religion that requires it is the Jewish faith.

When deciding my son's fate, my wife was concerned about why it was needed and she ask me if my son would have issues with him having a Johnson that is different than mine. I looked at her and said I never saw my dads, so why would he see mine.

Some odd reason she had this ideal that men are looking at each other (I guess that is what women do?)

After researching the question why would I want to be circumcised, I had no valid reason. We discussed this awhile back and the ladies piped in about if it made a difference to them. I think someone made a comment about the only difference is that one has a sweater and one does not.

So, in summary, why must you cut? It is crazy that we want to do that.

Moslem males are circumcised at the age of 13, just like Ishmael was.

Compared to Jewish circumcision, Moslem circumcision is considered partial.

For Jews, male circumcision is preformed as a covenant with God, as well as for purification proposes…keeping it clean. Removal of foreskin not only prevents health problems for men, it protects your female partner’s health by not dragging in infection. Around 20 % of males will be required to have the procedure due to medical reasons anyway. Might as well do it when you’re a baby.

In terms of pleasure, talk to the European wives of American circumcised Sailors and they’ll tell you that they prefer it streamlined, clean, and sensitive.

Male circumcision is done to promote a healthier lifestyle for men and their partners. It is meant to enhance your well being.

What they do to females is discusting and dangerous. It is meant to punish and comes from total disregard for human life.


Circumcision: Medical Pros and Cons--Infections, Disease, Hygiene and Cancer on MedicineNet.com (http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/article.htm)

Circumcision makes it easier to clean the helmet if you get mud on it.

Circumcision makes it easier to clean the helmet if you get mud on it.
:jet:

Circumcision makes it easier to clean the helmet if you get mud on it.

I have never had mud on mine, pretty much dont see it as a future threat either.

Peanut butter on the other hand.........

…keeping it clean. Removal of foreskin not only prevents health problems for men, it protects your female partner’s health by not dragging in infection. Around 20 % of males will be required to have the procedure due to medical reasons anyway. Might as well do it when you’re a baby.

Male circumcision is done to promote a healthier lifestyle for men and their partners. It is meant to enhance your well being.



Your link disproves this.

n 1975, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated in no uncertain terms that "there is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn." In 1983, the AAP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) restated this position. In 1999 and again in 2005, the AAP again restated this position of equivocation.

Do men really not know how to keep their junk clean?

To me there is a huge difference between males and females having this done. for girls, it's to prevent enjoyment of sex.

To me there is a huge difference between males and females having this done. for girls, it's to prevent enjoyment of sex.

Uncircumcised males claim greater sensitivity. Obviously, that is subjective because you only get one wienie and I certainly agree that much of the rational of FGM is specifically to subordinate women.

That said, the arguments for male circumcision is not to enhance enjoyment and it sure don't look like much fun to me.

:buddies:

Do men really not know how to keep their junk clean?

I do
shave it, soak it in a good anti bacterial ointment every night, twice a week hit it all with a blow torch to keep the crabs to a minimum.
Never get chocolate or anything that looks like chocolate on the penile area.

and above all, expose it to fresh air when out and about.

Uncircumcised males claim greater sensitivity. Obviously, that is subjective because you only get one wienie and I certainly agree that much of the rational of FGM is specifically to subordinate women.

That said, the arguments for male circumcision is not to enhance enjoyment and it sure don't look like much fun to me.

:buddies:

How do uncircumcised males know it's more sensitive? Unless they are asking grown men to rate the sensitivity before and after being circumcised as grown men. Other than that, I would think each persons sensitivity would be rated differently, much like people can rate pain on a different scale. Some are more/or less sensitive than others. Period.

How do uncircumcised males know it's more sensitive? Unless they are asking grown men to rate the sensitivity before and after being circumcised as grown men. Other than that, I would think each persons sensitivity would be rated differently, much like people can rate pain on a different scale. Some are more/or less sensitive than others. Period.

The less sensitive the longer the play.

How do uncircumcised males know it's more sensitive? Unless they are asking grown men to rate the sensitivity before and after being circumcised as grown men. Other than that, I would think each persons sensitivity would be rated differently, much like people can rate pain on a different scale. Some are more/or less sensitive than others. Period.

As I say, it is subjective. However, it stands to reason to me that if one of the most sensitive parts of my body is rubbing against clothing all the time rather than protected in the foreskin, that, over time, sensitivity would decline sooner for the circumcised.

What's more sensitive; your arm pit or your elbow?

How do uncircumcised males know it's more sensitive?


They sword fight with a circumcised guy :duel: and whoever smiles first is most sensitive.

Your link disproves this.

It appears that you've skipped a lot of important information provided by this link. Take a closer look:

The predicted lifetime risk of cancer of the penis in an uncircumcised man is one in 600 in the U.S. Cancer of the penis carries a mortality rate as high as 25%. This cancer occurs almost exclusively in uncircumcised men. In five major research studies, no man who had been circumcised as a newborn developed cancer of the penis.

Boys who are not circumcised as newborns may later have circumcision for the treatment of phimosis, paraphimosis, or balanoposthitis. When done after the newborn period, circumcision is considerably more complicated.

There is a higher risk of gonorrhea and inflammation of the urethra (the tube that carries the urine from the bladder outside) in uncircumcised men. It has also been reported that other sexually-transmitted diseases (such as chancroid, syphilis, human papillomavirus, and herpes simplex virus type 2 infection) are more frequent in uncircumcised men.

Recently, several large studies revealed a 60% decrease in HIV transmission in circumcised males compared to uncircumcised males. This may ultimately influence some changes in recommendations in the near future.


Circumcision prevents the growth under the foreskin of the agents that cause sexually-transmitted diseases. Removal of the foreskin may provide some measure of protection from these diseases to males and their mates.

Circumcision prevents the growth of bacteria under the foreskin and this, in turn, protects male infants against urinary tract infection.

The circumcised penis is generally easier to keep clean. An uncircumcised boy should be taught to clean his penis with care. So remember to do it often and with great care!

It appears that you've skipped a lot of important information provided by this link. Take a closer look:

The predicted lifetime risk of cancer of the penis in an uncircumcised man is one in 600 in the U.S. Cancer of the penis carries a mortality rate as high as 25%. This cancer occurs almost exclusively in uncircumcised men. In five major research studies, no man who had been circumcised as a newborn developed cancer of the penis.

Boys who are not circumcised as newborns may later have circumcision for the treatment of phimosis, paraphimosis, or balanoposthitis. When done after the newborn period, circumcision is considerably more complicated.

There is a higher risk of gonorrhea and inflammation of the urethra (the tube that carries the urine from the bladder outside) in uncircumcised men. It has also been reported that other sexually-transmitted diseases (such as chancroid, syphilis, human papillomavirus, and herpes simplex virus type 2 infection) are more frequent in uncircumcised men.

Recently, several large studies revealed a 60% decrease in HIV transmission in circumcised males compared to uncircumcised males. This may ultimately influence some changes in recommendations in the near future.


Circumcision prevents the growth under the foreskin of the agents that cause sexually-transmitted diseases. Removal of the foreskin may provide some measure of protection from these diseases to males and their mates.

Circumcision prevents the growth of bacteria under the foreskin and this, in turn, protects male infants against urinary tract infection.

The circumcised penis is generally easier to keep clean. An uncircumcised boy should be taught to clean his penis with care. So remember to do it often and with great care!

Then I don't understand this summary;

There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn.

\
The predicted lifetime risk of cancer of the penis in an uncircumcised man is one in 600 in the U.S. \

I find this a bit unrealistic. If it were true, you'd be hearing about it. I have yet to hear anyone I know or have known to be afflicted with this. And it's predicted, not taken from factual cases.

I have also never once been aware of a time where my uncircumcised member was any dirtier than any other part of my body.

I'm thrilled that my parents did not have me or my brothers snipped. I've always considered it to be an absolutely awful practice.

Do men really not know how to keep their junk clean?
I know several women who have this issue also, it's really scary when you can tell a woman hasn't cleaned it by the smell and they're fully clothed.

Then I don't understand this summary;

I think the key here is "routine". They're not willing to endorse it for every child because some make it out to be a "human rights issue".

However, when you look at data, I say might as well do it as a preventative measure.

BTW, it is believed that Moses was born circumcised. He was a more perfect male.

I know several women who have this issue also, it's really scary when you can tell a woman hasn't cleaned it by the smell and they're fully clothed.

I have had the misfortune of standing behind one of these women in a line at the grocery store.
at first I thought someone had left fish under a counter somewhere.

I know several women who have this issue also, it's really scary when you can tell a woman hasn't cleaned it by the smell and they're fully clothed.

:barf:

I find this a bit unrealistic. If it were true, you'd be hearing about it. I have yet to hear anyone I know or have known to be afflicted with this. And it's predicted, not taken from factual cases.

I have also never once been aware of a time where my uncircumcised member was any dirtier than any other part of my body.

I'm thrilled that my parents did not have me or my brothers snipped. I've always considered it to be an absolutely awful practice.

Only about 1,500 cases are diagnosed in the United States each year, so the disease accounts for less than 1% of all malignancies in American men. But it’s much more common in Asia, Africa, and South America, where it constitutes 10%–20% of all male malignancies. There are three explanations for this wide disparity.

Penile cancer is almost unheard of in Jewish males, who are traditionally circumcised on the eighth day of life.

It is only slightly more common in Muslims, who often delay circumcision until sometime between the ages of 3 and 13.

But circumcision in adulthood is not protective. All in all, circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer by over 70%, with infant circumcision the most beneficial.

Cancer of the penis (http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/update1205d.shtml)

I have never had mud on mine, pretty much dont see it as a future threat either.

Peanut butter on the other hand.........

I only thought women did the ole peanut butter and dog trick :killingme

Do men really not know how to keep their junk clean?

These questions sound a little fishy to me.

Only about 1,500 cases are diagnosed in the United States each year, so the disease accounts for less than 1% of all malignancies in American men. But it’s much more common in Asia, Africa, and South America, where it constitutes 10%–20% of all male malignancies. There are three explanations for this wide disparity.

Penile cancer is almost unheard of in Jewish males, who are traditionally circumcised on the eighth day of life.

It is only slightly more common in Muslims, who often delay circumcision until sometime between the ages of 3 and 13.

But circumcision in adulthood is not protective. All in all, circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer by over 70%, with infant circumcision the most beneficial.

Cancer of the penis (http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/update1205d.shtml)

Scary link to read. It does not answer the 1500 annually that are clipped or their exposure to STD's.

from what I have read, getting clipped is cleaner, more hygienic ie low maintenance


where do you thing the term Dick Cheese comes from


some luser not keeping his johnson clean



The origin to this, like the Muslim uncleanliness of pork and the left hand and a to lot of other religious practices, comes back to fact that religion in a lot of societies is the best way to enforce needed hygienic conventions. Like our incest taboo, meant to prevent the birth of babies with deformities.

Arguments about sensitivity are angels on the head of a pin. But at the end of it, FGM, with no hygienic value whatsoever, is meant to destroy (not lessen) a human beings ability to take pleasure in one of the most basic of human activities to enhance the total control of one sex by another. Circumcision is not. That's the difference. One thing lessens the ability to enjoy a major part of human life, the other does not.

Only about 1,500 cases are diagnosed in the United States each year, so the disease accounts for less than 1% of all malignancies in American men. But it’s much more common in Asia, Africa, and South America, where it constitutes 10%–20% of all male malignancies. There are three explanations for this wide disparity.

Penile cancer is almost unheard of in Jewish males, who are traditionally circumcised on the eighth day of life.

It is only slightly more common in Muslims, who often delay circumcision until sometime between the ages of 3 and 13.

But circumcision in adulthood is not protective. All in all, circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer by over 70%, with infant circumcision the most beneficial.

Cancer of the penis (http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/update1205d.shtml)

It seems very apparent you vote YES to circumcision. You have provided a lot of information in regards to the perceived positive results of circumcising. However, there are perceived negative results as well. Have you taken the time to research these?

Only about 1,500 cases are diagnosed in the United States each year, so the disease accounts for less than 1% of all malignancies in American men. But it’s much more common in Asia, Africa, and South America, where it constitutes 10%–20% of all male malignancies. There are three explanations for this wide disparity.

Penile cancer is almost unheard of in Jewish males, who are traditionally circumcised on the eighth day of life.

It is only slightly more common in Muslims, who often delay circumcision until sometime between the ages of 3 and 13.

But circumcision in adulthood is not protective. All in all, circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer by over 70%, with infant circumcision the most beneficial.

Cancer of the penis (http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/update1205d.shtml)

How does it compare to the percentage of botched ones? My friend says his sons was botched and instead of a stream he makes a spray upwards :cds:

It seems very apparent you vote YES to circumcision. You have provided a lot of information in regards to the perceived positive results of circumcising. However, there are perceived negative results as well. Have you taken the time to research these?



I think, though, the answer to Larry's question, "Why are we okay with one, not the other?", doesn't lie with data about benefits vs drawbacks, but in the intent of those consenting to having these procedures done.

Why do parents allow these things to be done, and what do they know that informs that choice? Not what our research shows, we know in the west, while some people might dig that deep, most making the choice will not.

So, a father in some 'Stan somewhere deciding to let someone perform this procedure on his daughter is doing that for what reasons? I don't include mother, because lets face it, in the cultures where this is common, they don't really get a say.

And why do parents in the west allow this to be done to their sons. I'm not including other cultures because Larry seemed to focus on western societies.

It seems very apparent you vote YES to circumcision. You have provided a lot of information in regards to the perceived positive results of circumcising. However, there are perceived negative results as well. Have you taken the time to research these?

Yes, I did. For me and my family, the benefits outweigh the "perceived negative results".

I think, though, the answer to Larry's question, "Why are we okay with one, not the other?", doesn't lie with data about benefits vs drawbacks, but in the intent of those consenting to having these procedures done.

Why do parents allow these things to be done, and what do they know that informs that choice? Not what our research shows, we know in the west, while some people might dig that deep, most making the choice will not.

So, a father in some 'Stan somewhere deciding to let someone perform this procedure on his daughter is doing that for what reasons? I don't include mother, because lets face it, in the cultures where this is common, they don't really get a say.

And why do parents in the west allow this to be done to their sons. I'm not including other cultures because Larry seemed to focus on western societies.

From my perspective, the decision of circumcision comes from religious traditions/customs, and/or medical knowledge/research.

Why circumcision of boys is encouraged while girls is criminal.....

My guess, and it is just a guess, is that this stems from "chivalry". One of the values, as I see it, of chivalry is to fight for your lady, not against your lady.

This promotes a system of protecting your females and opposed to limiting them. This system has its merits as well as pit-falls.

How does it compare to the percentage of botched ones? My friend says his sons was botched and instead of a stream he makes a spray upwards :cds:

One day in the hospital, two little boys were lying on stretchers next to each other outside of the operating room. The first boy leans over and asks, "What are you in for?"

"I'm here to get my tonsils out and I'm nervous," the second boy says.

The first kid says, "You've got nothing to worry about! I had that done when I was four. They put you to sleep and when you wake up they give you lots of ice cream and
Jell-O. It's a breeze!"

"Well what are you here for?" the second kid asks.

"A circumcision." The first kid replys woefully.

The second kid says "Wow! I had that done when I was born and I couldn't walk for a year!"

The second kid says "Wow! I had that done when I was born and I couldn't walk for a year!"


:lol:

From my perspective, the decision of circumcision comes from religious traditions/customs, and/or medical knowledge/research.

Why circumcision of boys is encouraged while girls is criminal.....

My guess, and it is just a guess, is that this stems from "chivalry". One of the values, as I see it, of chivalry is to fight for your lady, not against your lady.

This promotes a system of protecting your females and opposed to limiting them. This system has its merits as well as pit-falls.

Are you equating the removal of the male foreskin with the removal of the clitoris? I don't think that same name applies to both procedures.

From my perspective, the decision of circumcision comes from religious traditions/customs, and/or medical knowledge/research.

Why circumcision of boys is encouraged while girls is criminal.....

My guess, and it is just a guess, is that this stems from "chivalry". One of the values, as I see it, of chivalry is to fight for your lady, not against your lady.

This promotes a system of protecting your females and opposed to limiting them. This system has its merits as well as pit-falls.



This is a false comparison. One stems from total lack of respect for female life in the Middle East and Africa. This procedure, along with abortion of female babies and "honor killings" is criminal and barbaric. It is meant to supress and denegrade.

Although, male circumcision has religious and cultural roots, it has been adopted by US for its medical benefits.

Please remember that European babies are not circumcised on regular basis as we are here.

Are you equating the removal of the male foreskin with the removal of the clitoris? I don't think that same name applies to both procedures.

That's my issue. You cannot equate the two at all. You can argue whether male circumcision is okay or not but comparing it to FGM is like comparing a fender bender to being rear ended by a semi doing 75mph. A male still feels pleasure... circumcision or not, but with FGM any sense of sexual pleasure is pretty much dead.

Makes me wonder what the meat really is.

Hebrew National - Beef Franks, Kosher Beef Hot Dogs, Delicious Lunch Meats, Premium Polish Sausage, Grilling Tips and Grilling Recipes (http://www.hebrewnational.com/)

Makes me wonder what the meat really is.

Hebrew National - Beef Franks, Kosher Beef Hot Dogs, Delicious Lunch Meats, Premium Polish Sausage, Grilling Tips and Grilling Recipes (http://www.hebrewnational.com/)

A surgeon retires from his long career as a specialistin circumcision. Throughtout his career he has saved hundreds of foreskins as mementos and now wishes to turn them into a souvenir. He takes his specimens to a leathersmith and asks him to make something out of them. A week later the surgeon returns and the leathersmith presents him with a wallet. "All those foreskins and you only made me a wallet?" exclaims the surgeon. The leathersmith replies, "Yes, but if you stroke it, it becomes a briefcase."

I only thought women did the ole peanut butter and dog trick :killingme

oh no, its pretty universal.

guys just have to be ready if the dog tries to nibble.

:lmao:

Yes, I did. For me and my family, the benefits outweigh the "perceived negative results".

Why risk an unnecessary surgery? You call tell yourself all you want that some study says, but sorry, it ain't worth it. There is no neg. results of not having it done. There is a risk of infection with the surgery and the doctor could screw it up. Why thank that unnecessary chance?

How does it compare to the percentage of botched ones? My friend says his sons was botched and instead of a stream he makes a spray upwards :cds:

And I bet that it was not recorded anywhere that it was botched either.

Penile cancer is almost unheard of in Jewish males, who are traditionally circumcised on the eighth day of life.

Penile cancer is almost unheard of in ALL males. The risk of penile cancer in males is about the same as the risk of breast cancer in males. Should we remove men's mammary glands too? Circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer because it removes half the surface of the penis. If you remove skin, you reduce the amount of skin, thus reducing the chances of the man developing cancer in that area - but that's hardly a reason to cut off the skin. If it were, we'd also have routine infant ear and nose amputations performed after birth to prevent cancers of the ear and nose.

All in all, circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer by over 70%, with infant circumcision the most beneficial.

Your percentage reduction figure is misleading. We're talking about a very rare cancer that occurs in less than 1 man in 100,000. Penile cancer is not even that deadly - it has an 80% survival rate. The idea that we should cut the foreskin off every boy to save fewer than one in every 500,000 from dying from it is ludicrous.

Also, penile cancer is associated with advanced age and poor hygiene. Wouldn't we be better-off advising old men to stay clean, rather than perpetuating a ridiculously costly and ethically questionable surgery that is known to kill over 100 babies each year in the US alone?

Every year in the US, a million baby boys are circumcised. Over 100 of them will die from complications of the circumcision; up to 500,000 will experience non-fatal complications such as infections, adhesions and skin bridges (and much worse) that will make their genitals harder to clean and more prone to sexual difficulties for the rest of their lives. ALL of these circumcised boys - that's one million - will suffer the drawbacks of having been circumcised: the protection offered by the foreskin is gone (the glans keratinizes and desensitizes); also, the natural cleansing properties of the foreskin (cancer-fighting langerhans cells and anti-fungal / anti-bacterial microflora) are lost forever, as are the mechanical properties of the foreskin that allow easy vaginal entry and proper lubrication during sex. Out of the million babies that are circumcised every year, only one will be saved from dying as a result of penile cancer.

In short, circumcision protects 1 boy for every 100 it kills. And every boy who is circumcised experiences life-long negative consequences (although it's true that most are unaware of these drawbacks, because males circumcised in childhood can make no comparison). If you weigh the advantages and disadvantages and still think circumcision is a risk worth taking, I think you're crazy.

Circumcision is a religious ritual that became a cause celebre for influential quack doctors and social engineers in the 19th Century. It became popular due to the widely-held medical belief that masturbation caused all kinds of disease. It was perpetuated during the 20th Century in the medical community because of the inflexibility of medical teaching and a lack of willingness to question accepted practices. Through the decades, it has been proposed as a cure for almost every disease known to man, and it has been sold based on whatever the killer disease of the day was. Currently, that disease is AIDS. In time, we will, no doubt, find that the WHO programs in sub-Saharan Africa are just as useless and harmful as were the 19th Century circumcision programs put in place to stop syphilis, epilepsy, blindness, deafness and dumbness; or the 20th Century programs that were meant to fight urinary tract infections (until someone actually studied UTIs and found that circumcision did not prevent them at all). By the time we figure out that circumcision doesn't fight AIDS, there will doubtless be another disease which some will use to promote circumcision.

ALL of these circumcised boys - that's one million - will suffer the drawbacks of having been circumcised:

[clip]

And every boy who is circumcised experiences life-long negative consequences .......



that's horse#### ........ I have never had any problems, and I fathered 5 children, sex is just fine FYVM

that's horse#### ........ I have never had any problems, and I fathered 5 children, sex is just fine FYVM

I never said circumcision would make you infertile. The foreskin has nothing to do with the health or movement of sperm. I also mentioned that the problems with circumcision can be subtle - as I said, most men who were circumcised as boys have no idea that there's a problem with sex or hygiene. The hygienic benefits the foreskin confers are micro-biological, so you wouldn't notice them. The mechanical benefits are secondary, and would only exhibit as feminine dryness (which many women attribute to their bodies getting older). Also, many couples believe that the need for extra lubrication is normal (this is why KY jelly sells so well in places where circumcision is common). Finally, a reduction in sexual feeling could only be properly gauged by a man who was circumcised in adulthood (and most of them report severe reductions in feeling). Remember, reduction is not destruction - sex for a circumcised man still feels really good - it just can't be as good because the most sensitive sexual nerve endings (all of which are now known to be housed in the foreskin) are all gone.

In fact, many circumcised men claim that "If my penis were any more sensitive, it would make sex painful". This is because the sexual nerve endings that are left after circumcision are generally found in the glans, and they convey a very different set of sensations to the brain - one of which is pain, and this discomfort sensation is triggered after climax. This is why many circumcised men, after sexual climax, report feelings of discomfort - so that they have to pull out. Intact men do not generally feel this, because their foreskins (and the pleasure receptors contained in it) overcome the sensations from the glans.

The circumcised man's brain effectively 'boosts the signal' from the pleasure receptors of the glans. However, this works with varying degrees of effectiveness. The effectiveness also reduces with age, which is why Viagra and Cialis sell so well in places where circumcision is common: erectile dysfunction is a much more common problem in the US than it is in Europe or Asia (where circumcision is virtually unknown).

That's my issue. You cannot equate the two at all. You can argue whether male circumcision is okay or not but comparing it to FGM is like comparing a fender bender to being rear ended by a semi doing 75mph. A male still feels pleasure... circumcision or not, but with FGM any sense of sexual pleasure is pretty much dead.

This is actually not true. The facts are a lot more complex. Circumcision (male or female) is performed differently in different places, so the results fall along a spectrum. There are good resources at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98f3IavuEgQ
Ayaan Hirsi Ali - On Human Rights - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFNhM-F089E&feature=plcp)
FGC Education and Networking Project (http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html)
Template (http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/third/hanny3.html)

The first link above is, I believe, essential to full understanding of the issue. The second link shows Ayaan Hirsan Ali, a Dutch politician and victim of FGM, explaining that male circumcision is worse than some forms of FGM. The last links above show how similar the excuses are supporting FGM and the US form of circumcision, and explain how all the excuses are BS.

The fact is, some males report an inability to sense sexual pleasure after circumcision, while most women who experience clitorectomy report that their sexual feeling is still there. Many people in the West believe that the clitoris is only the visible part that is cut off during clitorectomy. However, very recent studies indicate that the clitoris is quite a large interior organ and is fully enervated throughout. See:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5013866.stm

Of course, that's not to say that any form of genital mutilation is harmless. On the contrary, I believe it is all harmful and it ALL must end.

Penile cancer is almost unheard of in ALL males. The risk of penile cancer in males is about the same as the risk of breast cancer in males. Should we remove men's mammary glands too? Circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer because it removes half the surface of the penis. If you remove skin, you reduce the amount of skin, thus reducing the chances of the man developing cancer in that area - but that's hardly a reason to cut off the skin. If it were, we'd also have routine infant ear and nose amputations performed after birth to prevent cancers of the ear and nose.



Your percentage reduction figure is misleading. We're talking about a very rare cancer that occurs in less than 1 man in 100,000. Penile cancer is not even that deadly - it has an 80% survival rate. The idea that we should cut the foreskin off every boy to save fewer than one in every 500,000 from dying from it is ludicrous.

Also, penile cancer is associated with advanced age and poor hygiene. Wouldn't we be better-off advising old men to stay clean, rather than perpetuating a ridiculously costly and ethically questionable surgery that is known to kill over 100 babies each year in the US alone?

Every year in the US, a million baby boys are circumcised. Over 100 of them will die from complications of the circumcision; up to 500,000 will experience non-fatal complications such as infections, adhesions and skin bridges (and much worse) that will make their genitals harder to clean and more prone to sexual difficulties for the rest of their lives. ALL of these circumcised boys - that's one million - will suffer the drawbacks of having been circumcised: the protection offered by the foreskin is gone (the glans keratinizes and desensitizes); also, the natural cleansing properties of the foreskin (cancer-fighting langerhans cells and anti-fungal / anti-bacterial microflora) are lost forever, as are the mechanical properties of the foreskin that allow easy vaginal entry and proper lubrication during sex. Out of the million babies that are circumcised every year, only one will be saved from dying as a result of penile cancer.

In short, circumcision protects 1 boy for every 100 it kills. And every boy who is circumcised experiences life-long negative consequences (although it's true that most are unaware of these drawbacks, because males circumcised in childhood can make no comparison). If you weigh the advantages and disadvantages and still think circumcision is a risk worth taking, I think you're crazy.

Circumcision is a religious ritual that became a cause celebre for influential quack doctors and social engineers in the 19th Century. It became popular due to the widely-held medical belief that masturbation caused all kinds of disease. It was perpetuated during the 20th Century in the medical community because of the inflexibility of medical teaching and a lack of willingness to question accepted practices. Through the decades, it has been proposed as a cure for almost every disease known to man, and it has been sold based on whatever the killer disease of the day was. Currently, that disease is AIDS. In time, we will, no doubt, find that the WHO programs in sub-Saharan Africa are just as useless and harmful as were the 19th Century circumcision programs put in place to stop syphilis, epilepsy, blindness, deafness and dumbness; or the 20th Century programs that were meant to fight urinary tract infections (until someone actually studied UTIs and found that circumcision did not prevent them at all). By the time we figure out that circumcision doesn't fight AIDS, there will doubtless be another disease which some will use to promote circumcision.

Please provide us with credible links that support your data.

Please provide us with credible links that support your data.

If people are interested, they can (and should) look up the data on their own. It's not as if they keep this stuff secret. And since this is a topic that is beset with misinformation by circumcision fetish sites like the Gilgal Society, the Acorn Society, the Cutting Club and Circlist, folks might want to go to a few sites just in case they stumble across one of the above by accident.

Here's Ken McGrath, Senior Lecturer in Pathology at the Faculty of Health, Auckland University of Technology and Member of the New Zealand Institute of Medical Laboratory Scientists, talking about the functions of the foreskin (if you don't visit any other links, watch this video):

Anatomy of the Penis: Penile and Foreskin Neurology - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD2yW7AaZFw)

Here are a few good sources for more info about male genital mutilation:

Myths about Circumcision You Likely Believe | Psychology Today (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/myths-about-circumcision-you-likely-believe)
Circumcision Resource Center (http://www.circumcision.org)
Doctors Opposing Circumcision (http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org)
National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (http://www.nocirc.org)
Attorneys for the Rights of the Child | Safeguarding Children's Rights to Genital Integrity (http://arclaw.org)
NOHARMM Access Page (http://www.noharmm.org/)
Circumcision Information and Resource Pages (http://www.cirp.org/)
Main Page - CircLeaks (http://www.circleaks.org)

Here are some links to studies and articles showing the harm of circumcision:

Deaths from Circumcision (http://www.cirp.org/library/general/gellis1/)
Circumcision | Infant circumcision causes 100 deaths each year in US | ICGI - Genital Integrity & Intactivism (http://www.icgi.org/2010/04/infant-circumcision-causes-100-deaths-each-year-in-us/)
New Study Estimates Neonatal Circumcision Death Rate Higher Than Suffocation and Auto Accidents - Washington DC family health | Examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com/family-health-in-washington-dc/new-study-estimates-neonatal-circumcision-death-rate-higher-than-suffocation-and-auto-accidents)
peaceful parenting: Death From Circumcision (http://www.drmomma.org/2010/05/death-from-circumcision.html)
Newborn male circumcision: Needless and dangerous (http://www.cirp.org/library/general/baker1/)
http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/bju_6685.pdf
Circumcision's complications: what could go wrong? - Washington DC family health | Examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com/family-health-in-washington-dc/circumcision-s-complications-what-could-go-wrong)
Expecting A Baby Boy? Infant Circumcision Facts (http://circumcisiondecisionmaker.com/)
https://sites.google.com/site/completebaby/circumcisers

Information concerning erectile dysfunction:

Men's Studies Press - Journal Article (http://www.mensstudies.com/content/2772r13175400432/?p=a7068101fbdd48819f10dd04dc1e19fb&pi=4)
Acquisition of Erectile Dysfunction from Circumcision | IntactNews (http://intactnews.org/node/138/1319461990/acquisition-erectile-dysfunction-circumcision)
Birth of a New Earth: INFANT CIRCUMCISION CAUSES ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION IN ADULT MALES (http://birthofanewearth.blogspot.com/2011/10/infant-circumcision-causes-erectile.html)

Information concerning fungal infection:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1045367/pdf/brjvendis00044-0041.pdf

Information concerning reduced penis size as a result of circumcision:

Frequently Asked Questions about Circumcision (http://www.boystoo.com/faq.htm)

Information concerning viruses:

Circumcision in the United States (http://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/)
Circumcised men are at greater risk of HIV infection (http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/)
http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/files/de_Witte_2007.pdf
http://physics.georgetown.edu/~rmca/Elephant_in_the_Hospital/Circumcision_and_HIV_Prevention_2010_Green_AJPM.pdf
Not a surgical vaccine: there is no case for boosting infant male circumcision to combat heterosexual transmission of HIV in Australia - Darby - 2011 - Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health - Wiley Online Library (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2011.00761.x/full)
http://www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/2011-12_JLM-Boyle-Hill.pdf
Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV - The WHOLE Network: Accurate Circumcision & Foreskin Information (http://www.thewholenetwork.org/14/post/2011/08/where-circumcision-doesnt-prevent-hiv.html)
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA458066

And here's one mother's experience:

Newborn Baby Care: A Letter to My Son | Newborn Baby Care | Parents Connect (http://www.parentsconnect.com/parenting-your-kids/baby/newborn-care/rant_1299395453981.html#)!

Quantity doesn't mean quality. I asked for credible links. Most of these are anti-circumcision activist sites like "National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males". Try again.

On a personal note, are you a victim of a botched circumcision? Perhaps, your story is all I need to change my mind.

Quantity doesn't mean quality. I asked for credible links. Most of these are anti-circumcision activist sites like "National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males". Try again.

Actually, most of the links are not affiliated with the intactivist cause (there are 15 intactivist site links and 17 links to peer-reviewed medical journal studies and news organizations that have no intactivist stance. So maybe you are the one who should try again.

I figured you would claim that the links were not credible. Fortunately, I think many others who have an open mind will disagree. And I do not agree that an anti-circumcision stance is 'activist' (by which you clearly mean 'biased'). If it's a bias, then the natural unaltered human body (and presumably also nature and evolution) is biased. The foreskin evolved in mammals about a hundred million years ago: if it did not confer an evolutionary benefit, it should have been discarded by the normal process of evolution tens of millions of years ago.

While some of my links (especially the first few) do link to intactivist sites, later links do not. I hardly think Psychology Today is an anti-circumcision site. Neither are the American Journal of Diseases of Children, Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies, Sexual Medicine Today, the British Journal of Urology International, examiner.com, the International Journal of Men's Health, Men's Studies Press, the British Journal of Venereal Diseases, the National Institutes of Health, the Journal of the American Medical Association, the International Journal of STD and AIDS, Nature Medicine, the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Georgetown University, the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, the Wiley Online Library, Salem News, Thomson Reuters, or the US Naval Health Research Center. If you think these are not credible sources, I'd be interested to read your reasons for believing so.

On a personal note, are you a victim of a botched circumcision? Perhaps, your story is all I need to change my mind.

I am intact and not the victim of a botched anything. I don't have a story, other than the fact that when I came to the US and found out that circumcision was done routinely here, I was horrified. I thought it had died out in the 1950s, when doctors started publishing the information showing that it was harmful. As for changing your mind with a story, if the first link I posted in my previous post (the Ken McGrath video) was not enough to at least make you reconsider, then I doubt that anything could.

Here are some links to the earliest studies done on circumcision. They are all at cirp.org (which I suppose you would claim to be not credible). However, the actual studies were published in peer reviewed medical journals:

1949: The Fate of The Foreskin (http://www.cirp.org/library/general/gairdner/)
1953: The Widdicombe File: Should Baby be Circumcised? (http://www.cirp.org/library/general/widdicombe/)
1965: Morgan: Rape of the Phallus (http://www.cirp.org/library/general/morgan/)
1966: The Unkindest Cut of All (http://www.cirp.org/news/1966.07_Foley/)
1967: Penile Plunder (http://www.cirp.org/library/general/morgan2/)
1968: Further Fate of the Foreskin (http://www.cirp.org/library/general/oster/)

I won't go on into the 1970s, '80s, '90s or 2000s, but the story is the same - more and more doctors slowly coming to realize that circumcision was a horrible medical mistake.

If anyone wants to read more circumcision studies that came out against circumcisions in medical journals, they are all here, all listed with all sources from reputable medical journals:

General Discussions of Male Circumcision (http://www.cirp.org/library/general/)

From what I understand democrats CAN'T be circumcised.....






There's no end to those pricks....

Obama wears high collar shirts or turtle necks....





To hide the circumcision scar.

[QUOTE=Beery;


I am intact and not the victim of a botched anything. I don't have a story, other than the fact that when I came to the US and found out that circumcision was done routinely here, I was horrified.

If anyone wants to read more circumcision studies that came out against circumcisions in medical journals, they are all here, all listed with all sources from reputable medical journals:

General Discussions of Male Circumcision (http://www.cirp.org/library/general/)[/QUOTE]

No I don't think we need anymore links.
I cannot beleive when you first came to the US the most horrific thing you found about us, is that most males are circumcised.
I think that there are many more important issues that your obviously passionate mind could help with other than a little snip an clip.

JMHO

I am intact and not the victim of a botched anything. I don't have a story, other than the fact that when I came to the US and found out that circumcision was done routinely here, I was horrified. [/url]


I admire your passion regarding your own member and the members of American men. Furthermore, I am chuffed to bits that my words inspired you to join our forum and post your very first comments. Cheerio!

If anyone wants to read more circumcision studies that came out against circumcisions in medical journals, they are all here, all listed with all sources from reputable medical journals:

General Discussions of Male Circumcision (http://www.cirp.org/library/general/)

I had read enough to know it was not worth it to have it done to my son many years ago. Working for a medical mal. part. insurance company many years ago made me think that any unnecessary medical procedures is something to avoid at all costs.

Thanks for your post. Maybe someone else will realize how much of a waste this procedure is.

I think that there are many more important issues that your obviously passionate mind could help with other than a little snip an clip.

And this is the entire problem in a nutshell. Most Americans think that one of the most disgusting human rights abuses, one that makes a million of their own children each year sexually and immunologically dysfunctional and permanently physically deformed, is the equivalent of getting one's fingernails clipped. It's obscene! It's like some kind of twisted joke.

Fingernails and hair (stuff we consider getting clipped or snipped) grow back. The foreskin does not - and far from a snip and clip, it is a procedure that takes up to 15 minutes, during which time the victim is either screaming due to the intense pain, or has lapsed into a comatose state for the same reason. This is the difference between a harmless and temporary cosmetic procedure and a harmful permanent mutilation.

And how the acrotomophiles and circumcision fetishists must laugh while they masturbate to images and video of infant and adult circumcisions (and I assure you they do), as this blithe disregard for children's well-being allows them to perpetuate their form of pedophilia with no fear of prosecution or even societal condemnation. Heck, far from being condemned, they are actively supported, and those who want to stop the mass child abuse are held up for ridicule.

All I can do is advise people not to commit this crime against their kids. And again, if anyone visited the links I provided and read even a fraction of the information therein, and still believes circumcision is worth the risk, I think they must be psychotic. Such disregard for their own children's well-being would have to come from a diseased mind.

And to those who think circumcision is a subject for humor, I understand that this kind of humor comes from the discomfort we feel subconsciously about the issue. But I assure you, as Christopher Hitchens said, genital mutilation is no joke (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U93ZiR692l4).

...And how the acrotomophiles and circumcision fetishists must laugh while they masturbate to images and video of infant and adult circumcisions (and I assure you they do), as this blithe disregard for children's well-being allows them to perpetuate their form of pedophilia with no fear of prosecution or even societal condemnation...

I found your posts very informative and 'to the point' until this part I quoted. You might appear (if this were a face to face setting) to get more and more emotional and irrational.

I bolded the part I found particularly disturbing. You masturbate with them?...otherwise, how else would you KNOW?

Are you equating the removal of the male foreskin with the removal of the clitoris? I don't think that same name applies to both procedures.

For the sake of this argument, I'd have to say, yes, I am equating them, but they do have different names.

However, I am equating them, not because of the known/unknown effects of the procedures, but rather because they are both non-necessary, surgical procedures and both are committed to based upon the personal beliefs of the parents and/or the baby, as an adult, later in life.

Circumcision has been practiced for 1000s of years. The medical profession [doctors] had a bias toward the religious custom (either because they were also circumcised or what not) so they, naturally, moved to defend it using their profession to provide incentives toward it. This makes sense to me. I am not saying it is right, but it makes sense.

The procedure came first. The medical justifications/incentives came afterword. The negative aspects take time to surface, especially after the amount of positive support it had gained, over the decades, in the medical community.

This is a false comparison. One stems from total lack of respect for female life in the Middle East and Africa. This procedure, along with abortion of female babies and "honor killings" is criminal and barbaric. It is meant to supress and denegrade.

I think we may be agreeing on this part, but approaching it from too different directions. I was making reference to the societal views of Europe and the US. Chivalry was prominant in these areas...not ME and Africa. FGM is not prominant in the US. This may be due to the societal construct of "chivalry". That is the only point I am trying to make. I do not believe that FGM is not practiced widely in the US because of its medical pro/cons.

Although, male circumcision has religious and cultural roots, it has been adopted by US for its medical benefits.

I disagree. Male circumcision came first. People questioned the practice, so the US doctors used medical research to find positive effects to performing circumcision to maintain the status quo. One reason for this may have been to keep people from panicking over it...pr perhaps they were greedy and didn't want to lose the source of income from doing the procedure....I don't know though. The negative effects are still being researched.

I disagree. Male circumcision came first. People questioned the practice, so the US doctors used medical research to find positive effects to performing circumcision to maintain the status quo. One reason for this may have been to keep people from panicking over it...pr perhaps they were greedy and didn't want to lose the source of income from doing the procedure....I don't know though. The negative effects are still being researched.

It wasn't really popular in the US until some nutbags decided that it would keep young boys from masturbating. :killingme I dont think anything could have kept me from masturbating around that age.

It wasn't really popular in the US until some nutbags decided that it would keep young boys from masturbating. :killingme I dont think anything could have kept me from masturbating around that age.
First I've ever heard of that theory.

First I've ever heard of that theory.

Look it up, its all over the web.

History of male circumcision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision)

Non-religious 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,[40] Karen Erickson Paige writes: "In the United States, 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.'"

...pr perhaps they were greedy and didn't want to lose the source of income from doing the procedure....I don't know though. The negative effects are still being researched.

It's always about the money at some point. :shrug: Much of what I have read indicates that, regardless of cultural or religious background, it was typical in performance of the 'operation' that the practitioners, pretty much universally, quarreled over who got to keep the tips.

It's always about the money at some point. :shrug: Much of what I have read indicates that, regardless of cultural or religious background, it was typical in performance of the 'operation' that the practitioners, pretty much universally, quarreled over who got to keep the tips.

:doh:

Look it up, its all over the web.

History of male circumcision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision)

Hate to break that bubble but, I am not with the nasty smegma encrusted hanging foreskin, and I still am quite able to engage in the act of 'polluting' practice of 'self-abuse"

It's always about the money at some point. :shrug: Much of what I have read indicates that, regardless of cultural or religious background, it was typical in performance of the 'operation' that the practitioners, pretty much universally, quarreled over who got to keep the tips.

Oh my Gawd....

:lol: but that is sick....,but it did make me laugh :lol:

Hate to break that bubble but, I am not with the nasty smegma encrusted hanging foreskin, and I still am quite able to engage in the act of 'polluting' practice of 'self-abuse"

Personally I prefer to bathe, but to each their own.