by chickpea 66 Replies latest social family
never believing that a foreskin was a birth defect, i left my sons intact...( called genital integrity in some circles)
what, if anything, makes circumcision less of a mutilation than FGM?
dont kill the questioner!! you already perceive my bias... i am merely wondering what others think
I don't know. My son was born on the east coast, delivered by some wonderful Jewish doctors. At the time, I was super young and inexperienced ... and it was presented as your son's circumcision is scheduled for ....
It was a routine thing and, as his dad was circumcised, I never gave it a 2nd thought. The biggest explanation I can recall was for hygiene purposes.
If I had a son now, I wouldn't do it.
part of what prompted my inquiry was the fact that as i was watching the ray franz videos in romania, i saw that there was a vid on an actual circ......
i was horrified by the process and then went looking at stats and found that in the area of the country where i live (US midwest), nearly 80% of the baby boys leave the hospital no longer intact and i was wondering how and why something as medically unnecessary as a circ is still so mainstream in the US when some countries report less than 5% as their circ rate?
is this a big money maker for hospitals? what is the rationale?
I don't know if this is valid since it comes from the witnesses, but I remember reading once that for some unknown reason, their is less blood flowing through the pubic region somewhere around eight days old and thus is a relatively safe time to cut the foreskin. That still doesn't explain the WHY of it though.
And, as I said earlier, that's from the witnesses so it might not even be medically accurate.
I wouldn't do that to a kid. Just my two cents...
I was cut. I don't remember myself but I feel "fine". My father not until he was a teen. Circumcision is less prevalent in Latin America than in N. America. Very painful he says. He is fastidious about his hygiene (as am I) but it was a difficult situation in a tropical climate without air conditioning.
It has many benefits.
In it's favor, women seem to prefer it.
It protects against STDs.
There is a far lower incidence of penile cancer.
It seems to be a good adaptation to difficult scenarios:
Infections, initiated by the aggravation of dirt and sand, are not uncommon under such conditions and have even crippled whole armies, where it is difficult to achieve sanitation during prolonged battle.
A US Army report by General John Patton stated that in World War II 150,000 soldiers were hospitalized for foreskin problems due to inadequate hygiene, leading to the statements: “Time and money could have been saved had prophylactic circumcision been performed before the men were shipped overseas” and “Because keeping the foreskin clean was very difficult in the field, many soldiers with only a minimal tendency toward phimosis were likely to develop balanoposthitis [432]. Army urologists stated “Had these patients been circumcised before induction [into the Army] this total would have been close to zero”. In the Second World War Australia had to send urologists to circumcise all of its troops fighting in the North African campaign who were not already circumcised [529]. Similarly sand was a problem for uncircumcised men during the Gulf War in Iraq (‘Desert Storm’) in the early 1990s [195, 512].
Burn
Well from everything i've heard,it was for hygenic reasons,with the foreskin gone,it's supposed to be a lot easier to keep the area,especially under the Glans,clean.
What makes FGM different,is that from what i understand,they are mainly removing the clitoris,which for some women,is the only part they can achieve the big "O" with,when they remove this,they essentially remove that part of sex for them. I'd also say that it was the intent behind the procedure too to some degree,one procedure is meant for easier maintenance,the other procedure is to deprive a person of sexual pleasure...probably would be the equivalent to removing the Glans i suppose._KS
My older brother wasn't cut. Other boys at school made fun of him.
Ok, I'm going to say it.......I prefer a man who is sniped. Much more attractive and clean. Sorry but that's the truth. And hmm, never ever heard any man who was circumsized as a child complain as an adult about the mental trauma, or physical pain. If they did, I would laugh my head off and tell them to try pushing out a 10 pound baby and then talk to me about pain. hehe
i remember the deal with the WTS saying that the loving provision of the big J to legalistically delay circ until the 8th day was because that is alledgedly when levels of vitamin K reach a peak in neonates and hence the likelihood of a child dying from bleeding (due to lack of the clotting factor prothrombin, created in the liver using vit K) was minimized..... my spin is that if a loving god wanted males to have a foreskin, he would make sure they were born with one
i read a quote from a man who had a circ as an adult and bemoaned the fact that now, for him, sex became like having sight without colour...... it isnt just a piece of skin!!!
