This started with a Stupid Religious Ritual thousands of years ago by Abraham because God Commanded him to do it. Totally unecessary and Really Stupid by adults still practicing this ritual.
my son underwent circumcision at 1 month old. He had a medical problem that required circumcision. sometimes with conditions you cannot "wait" until the child is old enough to consent. I don't believe in FGM or MGM but if it is done as a medical necessity then i believe that people shouldn't be chastised for it.
@Unicorness2005 im sorry to tell you, but there is a very good chance that your child didnt actually need a circumcision. in the united states, doctors dont know what to do with the foreskin except to cut it off, so if your son had any kind of slight issue, the doctor probably had no clue of what to do other than perform a circ. medically necessary circs are extremly, extremely rare and are NEVER needed in the neonatal period. not judging you, just letting you know.
I have a friend who is Muslim and his sons are INTACT, the way Allah intended. Please get educated, because NOT every male Jew or Muslim does this to their sons: Jews Against Circumcision is an organization trying to have it stopped by Jews, for Jews. Circumcision is not mentioned in the Qur'an and there are arguments from the Qur'an which opposes male circumcision, many Qur'an alone followers adhere to this principle and argue circumcision to be against the Qur'an.
People are such, Crybabys? This helps a child (reduces infection chance and cancer chance) BUT who have these damb activist idiots who cry thisis wrong, It makes no change in sexual feelings and some men get it done a a older age, this may not seem humain but thier only helping so people like that need to shut up and actually learn about the human body before hey start bitc****
I believe some males would be glad about having their genitals mutilated but in Africa people are fighting against 'female genital mutilation' (FMG) ... so why would 'male genital mutilation' (MGM) be a right thing to do! huh? I say there is a lack of logic !! At least wait till the kid is old enough to say what he thinks about it/or the O.K word... or else this is as much a violation of the human right in anycase as the FMG !
@denalaurens are you aware that your statement that "most men around the world have this done" is incorrect. Only 15% of the men in the world are cut. Do some reasearch before you put incorrect facts on the internet please. This is after all an important topic
@denalaurens wow lieing for the cause huh? dont listen to this jerk. ONLY 20% of the world does this at all including america and the new quest to force africa to do it saying that it will save them which it wont. most where it happens is caused by mulsilums, jews, and white ppl, and others caused by white and cultural influence. personally i am but i still have a ring left on the shaft which is a mirical. foreskin is great feels way better and shoulded be removed. u sickos torturing infants
i my self was circumcised as and infant due 2 medical reasons that being my bell was to big and was gettin infected and swollen iam now 27 yrs old had lots of partners none of whom complained at least to my knowlage and im about to become a father for the first time btw i remember the op but not the pain so hardly a scar on my life isit and masterbation is possible and fun just like everyone else i suppose
They are called "PRIVATE PARTS" for a reason. Respect everyone's right to bodily integrity. The foreskin has tens of thousands of sexually responsive nerves.
Ummm there is one thing that isn't correct with this 'ritual'. First of all I'm very much against it due to universal human rights, but also... in Judaism they are not permitted to use pain killers during the procedure. I guess if you're going to break the rules at one point, why do it at all?
Isn't this traumatic for the poor baby??? I think this can leave in his brain so much trauma. I do not agree on this type of procedures, but if they can't wait till the baby is a man and can decide. Can at least they put the baby to seel so that he does not feel any pain??? Or pain is necessary so that this procedure can be effective??? Peace!
i say, better of doing it as a baby, I my self had it done when i was a baby. and im glad, id rather it done then , then if i was older and deside to get it done. ask any cercomsized male if they are unhappy that they are cercomsized, exactly
Word came to me of a sadistic female MD who injects anesthesia (VERY painful) the day BEFORE she comes in to rip off a boy's penis, she laughed "so he can have the full pain of both punitive experiences!" Then she sells the cut off foreskin as a lucite paperweight to wives of rich guess who's.
1 we are born with it its there for a reason why take it away
2 only time i would do it if i realy needed to
3 the kews only do it becuase one of them long time ago said: oh! this dont look right! lets cut it off. it plain ol stupid i swear i would go crazy if i saw you in realy life
Dr.John Taylor The frenulum Delta shows dartos muscle tenses when erect creating a solid skin tube where any action on it is transferred to the erogenous ridged band so thus transferred through its loop to the nexus the frenulum. No action on the shaft is wasted. Circ. cuts off all the ridged band and most or all of the frenulum. Shaft action is wasted and must be directly acted upon the frenulum remnant.
US doctors bring out circ. to fight the disease of the day. It's calle the "pony express".
The foreskin is first line of defense of the immune system. Langerhans cells secrete Langerin that kills HIV dead. Sorrells et al. study shows circ. cuts off the most sensitive parts and 75% of the sexual receptors. read circumstitions.
What you do with your own body is your business, this is intrusing into the childs own body, because YOU think its a good thing to do. What if the child will grow up and become an atheist, hinduist, christian or any other practitioner who don't believe in circumsition?
@munoz180 my mother decided to wait for my brother to decide on his own after having her first son done as an infant. She wish she would not have waited, for having the operation at a later age was far more traumatic for my brother, and far more painful for him as well. It is a well documented fact that the ability to feel pain in the fist six weeks of life is very minimal in skin, so maybe do a little more research before you decide. My brother would say do it in the fist week.His son was.
@munoz180 my mother decided to wait for my brother to decide on his own after having her first son done as an infant. She wish she would not have waited, for having the operation at a later age was far more traumatic for my brother, and far more painful for him as well. It is a well documented fact that the ability to feel pain in the fist six weeks of life is very minimal in skin, so maybe do a little more research before you decide. My brother would say do it in the fist week.His son was.
I consider myself a person of hard stomach that have and can watch almost anything. Watching this made me sick. I dont understand how someone is able to cause so much pain to his/her baby. those in favor do an e.xperiment take a knife and make a cut somewhere in your genitals and see how it feels
Furthermore, the nation with one of the lowest rates of cervical cancer globally is FINLAND, which happens to also have about the LOWEST rate of male circumcision (less than 1%). You can easily google this info.
I have a problem with ALL infant genital mutilation for any reason. That is because the arbitrary nature of infant genital mutilation strips a helpless child of a basic human right, the right to their whole body to do with ONLY as they see fit. And this argument subsumes all other arguments because even if genital mutilation were useful....somehow....it still would not give parents or a doctor the right to modify someones body without their consent. That is taking away a part of who we are.
right on brownyman if they could make a law against it then i wouldn't have to suffer for "my parents decision" or ALOT!!!!!!!!!!!!! of compensation (100,000,000) .you know because its my Fucking body part not there's it also lessens sensations
@Brownyman but their bodies arent truly theirs until they are 18. They cant get a tattoo or a piercing on their own. Why would they be able to decide between circumcision and non circumcision?
I don't have any problem with circumcision for medical or cultural reasons, but surely in this century we should be giving infants proper anaesthesia.This film is evidence of wounding with intent. The poor little boy. I am a mother and I can't believe that mothers will allow such barbarism on their newborn sons without question. This is not about culture or religion or hygiene. It's about dignity and respect and compassion.
PixiePieCan, Circumcision is needless & crime against minors. 3/4th of the worlds male population are not circumsized. Chop the choppers hand and jail them for life.
@PixiePieCan Circumcision is unnecessary for ANY reason. If there were still Aztecs would you consider it OK for cultural and religious reasons for them to be practicing human sacrifice? We live in a new age. We know more about the function and purpose of the foreskin then ever before. NO ONE has the right to deprive another human being of his bodily integrity for ANY reason. QUESTION CIRCUMCISION.
most cerival cancers are not caused by the uncircumsized men. I believe that is a ploy from doctors to keep cutting away without any numbing meds for babies. barbaric
I have a question for you; although I am not Muslim and I am not against male circumcision. I had my son circumcised at 2 days old (he is 19 yrs now) because of sanitary reasons; it is a proven fact that women who have uncircumcised partners have the highest incidence of cervical cancer. I am wondering if you or anyone can explain why it is done on women? Thank you! Looking forward to your reply.
I work in the medical community and I dont see how this is possible when cervical cancer is caused by a virus and uncircumsized peni do not carry viruses. I could understand if it was a baceterial thing but thats kind of impossible.
I work in the medical community also--as a paramedic; I didn't make up this data. If it's kind of impossible, maybe you'd care to cite your sources of information for me, so I could correct my seemingly erroneous opinion? Thanks!
You know, I wasn't being rude to you, and I don't expect you to be rude to me either. I'm a paramedic who loves medicine; therefore, I study it beyond my job capacity. I'm thinking of becoming an RN. Now, if you care to answer my original question sans sarcasm, I would welcome your data so that I could read up on it and be more current. And I notice you chose not to reveal your job title; very interesting...
Your original reply was just as sarcastic as mine was. I dont feel the need to cite my sources as it is common medical knowledge that cervical cancer is caused by a virus. I would also be surprised to find that an uncircumsized penis is responsible for the spread of a virus since I dont see how that is possible.
I also didnt feel the need to state my job title because its not important. Lets just say that I started as a paramedic and went further with my education but Im not an RN. Hows that? I didnt mean my original post to sound accusatory in any way. I was simply stating what I new and doubting how your statement was possible.
An uncircumsized penis may make it more likely to transmit the virus only because the foreskin keeps the glans dark, warm, and moist. Condoms as we all know help prevent disease. Circumcision is not the answer for this or better hygiene. Parents need to get off their lazy asses and start teaching boys how to use soap and water-we teach little girls how to wash
No you are not wrong. The paremedics are trained to lie to people. Cervical cancer comes from a virus like HPV and any man circumcised or not can catch it. A clean man can't give a woman cancer. Even an uncircumcised man that doesn't wash his penis for a year will not give a woman cancer, maybe a bacterial infection but not cancer. It is even unlikely that a woman can catch a bacterial infection because the smegma in the foreskin has immunilogical defenses whcich kills germs.
No you are not wrong. A clean penis can't give a woman cancer. Cancer is not contagious. HPV causes cervical cancer and it is a virus. Even if a man has poor hygiene, the only thing he can give a woman is a bacterial infection. Even that is unlikely because the uncircumcised penis is self cleaning. The smegma has immulogical defenses, cells that kills germs.
I'm surprised that you don't know that the medical community makes up these lies in order to convince patients to circumcise. It is a money making scam. Uncircumcised penises are born clean and stay clean unless they catch a disease. It is common sense to a normal person. Cancer is not contagious and cut man is just as likely to catch any disease because all it takes is exchange of bodily fluids to enter the opening of the penis regardless whether there is foreskin or not.
Uncircumsized penises do carry viruses. I do not see how you can say this when you are in the "medical community". AIDS, herpes, and HPV all are viruses that can be carried by circumsized or uncircumsized penises. The best way to avoid these diseases and the ones caused by bacteria is not to circumsize but the wear a CONDOM!!!
Tommyzgirl, your claim "as a fact" that women with uncirc'ed partners are more prone to cervical cancer is bunkum!
European nations are over 90%UNcircumcised and have about the same cervical cancer rate as the 80% circumcised USA and Canada (see: United Nations Human Development Report 2001). About 7-9 women per 100,000 develop cervical cancer in USA and west Europe p.a.. (Source: United Nations Human Development Report 2001) . Circumcision status doesn't come into the picture!
Do you have proof that it is a proven fact. Most of these benefits are lies. If there were benefits, USA wouldn't have the highest rate of aids. Most woman complain of problems like UTI infections and soreness from circumcised men. Because circumcised men thrust harder during penetration due to desensitization they cause tears in the vagina which make a woman even more susceptible to diseases.
elaine, check the 2007 study from the World Health Organization. There you will find your "proof that it is a proven fact" And your statements are way off. the usa does not have the highest rate of aids, not even close. africa does. Do a little research, read the findings of the World Health Organization.
Doing anything like this to a person, no matter how young, without their permission is wrong. Why not wait until the child is of age, and allow him to make the choice for himself.
I was circumcised as a baby, and am not happy about it. I have been regenerating my foreskin and have seen success. It is there for a reason people, dont question gods design.
Anyone that does that to an innocent baby is a sick human being. There is no reason that any child should have to go through this atrocity any where in this world. That baby was experiencing extreme torture and pain from that needle going in and around his male parts. No adult male could take such torture. DO NO HARM!!!!!
why does every man that was circumcised from birth not complain but are happy, like me, to have this done....only the uncircumcised people complain about this.... just admit it uncircumcised is unhealthy and disgusting
You are an adult that's your decision, but you cannot make that decision for someone else that can't even talk! I have 5 boys, little boys and I did not circumsise them because that's their decision when they are men, it's not for their mother or father to decide if they need their pee pee cut off
So, after seeing a helpless baby in such pain and distress, you smugly approve of it! No pediatric society even recommends the surgery, and the claimed benefits do not outweigh the associated risks. Intense trauma may be seared into the subconscious, where it can affect subsequent behaviour and perception. Only the owner of the body has the right to consent to this unnecessary operation.
I got circumcised today (i'm 16) why do a lot of people keep saying it is going to hurt like hell? It didn't hurt me nor does it hurt now, the only thing I have a problem with are the glands *the penis head*
If the evidence clearly shows circumcision is so protective, why isn't there a single Western paediatric society that indicates that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, or indeed that there are significant benefits?
nobody is saying it is the health miracle of the century, but it does have benefits. If parents want to allow thier son to have those benefits then it is their right to do so. All medical establishments allow parents to make that choice, wether u like it or not..
joikee, thanks for attempting to answer my question. But I challenge you to find me ONE Western paediatric society that says the benefits of neonatal circumcision outweigh the risks, or indeed that there are proven benefits. Clearly, there is an undeniable LOSS of highly specialised, EROGENOUS tissue, not to mention the trauma of the operation. So, I (pharmacist) say only perform this with the informed consent of the owner of the body.
Note also that it is absolutely fallacious to claim that all studies show that circumcision is protective against STDs. Some studies indicate this, whilst others do not. You also need to take care when interpreting them to consider socioeconomic factors, noting that circumcision is more prevalent in the wealthier groups, which have better access to medical care and are generally better educated.
they do say benefits and harms are so evenly balanced that the parents will have the right to make that decision. These statements were made back in the late 90's.. since then a number of very good studies have come about showing the benefits. Just reality, try and deal with it.
joikee, that's not quite correct. Your own country's paediatric society says that "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed". This statement agrees with the position of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians of 2004 and that of the UK. In recommending routine circumcision, you are contradicting their advice. May I ask what your medical credentials are, if any?
UK: a comprehensive study on sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) involving a large cross-section of Britons was performed in the year 2000.The finding was that there was NO SIGNIFICANT difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men in regard to diagnosis of any of the following STDs: gonorrhoea, Chlamydia trachomatis infection, syphilis, non-specific urethritis, genital herpes, genital warts and trichomoniasis. See Sexually Transmitted Infections, 2003 (Vol. 79) (No. 6) 499-500
joikee, below I have shown, and I can continue to show, many tudies REFUTING that being circumcised reduces STDs. My question remains: If the foreskin contributes to the spread of STDs and HIV in Western countries, why is the rate of HIV infection over three times lower per capita in Intact Europe (Sweden, UK, France, Finland, Denmark) compared to the USA? The normal, healthy secretions under the foreskin may actually have a protective effect.
The foreskin has immunological defenses. A killing enxyme called lysozyme and Langerhans cells are epithelial cells that protect the penis from sexually transmitted diseases. Saliva also kills the aids virus because of its low salt content.
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Academy of Family Practitioners and the American Medical Association have all published statements not supporting routine neonatal circumcision. These are echoed by medical organizations all over the world, including the Australian Association of Paediatric Surgeons, which said on circumcision: "We do not support the removal of healthy tissue, unless there are definite indications to justify the complications and risks which may arise."
The Canadian Paediatric Society declared its position on circumcision in 1996, saying that "circumcision of newborns should NOT be routinely performed." This statement agrees with the Royal Australasian College of Physicians concurs, which advised parents in 2004 that it "does not recommend circumcision for newborn boys".
yeah, tricomb, you're starting to repeat yourself again. Are we just going to continue copying and pasting reports to disprove the each others' views? WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER THIS: If the evidence clearly shows circumcision is so protective, why isn't there a single Western paediatric society that can CLEARLY say the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, or indeed that there are significant benefits? PLEASE ANSWER!
The Lauman study (JAMA. 1997 Apr 2;277(13):1052-7) found that uncircumcised men had an
increased risk of sexual dysfunction, especially later in life. As an aside, circumcised
men received more fellatio and masturbated more.
A recent published study from Australia surveying thousands of men (Int J STD AIDS. 2006 Aug;17(8):547-54.) found that circumcised men experienced less physical pain during
intercourse and had fewer difficulties keeping an erection.
Circumcision desensitizes: Circumcision desensitizes the penis radically. Foreskin amputation means severing the rich nerve network and all the nerve receptors in the foreskin itself. Circumcision almost always damages the frenulum. The loss of the protective foreskin with time leads to desensitization of the glans, since it keratinises (hardens). J. A. Erickson, "Three Zones of Penile Skin. "In M. M. Lander, "The Human Prep
Tricomb and others can certainly find studies that suggest there is a protective role for circumcision. But is is also easy to find studies showing that this view is weak and untenable, as I show below. The authority best placed to interpret ALL the findings is paediatric societies. Interestingly, NONE OF THEM recommend routine circumcision, because there is no evidence that any potential benefits outweigh the risk of this invasive and painful surgery.
Laumann et al. reviewed data from the National Health and Social Life Survey (USA). They found NO EVIDENCE of a protective role for circumcision - in fact the reverse! ABSENCE of the foreskin was significantly associated with bacterial STDs among men who had many sexual partners. More Chlamydia infections were in the circumcised group (as %)than for the intact men. Also, herpes was 14.9/1000 in circumcised males compared with 8.1/1000 in intact males.
Female partners of circumcised men do NOT report a lower rate of cervical cancer, nor is there sound evidence that circumcision prevents penile cancer. The following, recent study shows that the penile cancer rate is higher in the US than in Denmark, where circumcision, except among Middle Eastern immigrant workers, is almost unheard of. M. Frisch et al., "Falling Incidence of Penis Cancer in an Uncircumcised Population (Denmark 1943-90)," British Medical Journal 311 (1995): 1471.
Circumcision does NOT prevent acquisition or transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). In fact, the US has both the highest percentage of sexually active circumcised males in the Western world and the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.
Many studies show that American men are at a greater risk for bacterial and viral STDs, especially gonorrhea, non-gonoccal urethritis. human papilloma virus, herpes simplex virus type and Chlamydia than European men. (B. Donovan et al., "Male Circumcision and Common Sexually Transmissible Diseases in a Developed Nation Setting," Genitourinary Medicine 70 (1994): 317-320)
Women whose sexual partners are circumcised are less likely to develop cervical cancer than the partners of uncircumcised men, concludes a report out today.
The difference was statistically significant only in the partners of men considered to be at high risk for infection with human papillomavirus, or HPV, according to the study in The New England Journal of Medicine. Such men had had at least six sexual partners in their lifetime, beginning before age 17.
Last Updated: 2003-04-29 10:32:15 -0400 (Reuters Health)
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Circumcised men appear to have the same degree of penis sensitivity as men who are uncircumcised, a new study suggests -- in a finding that will probably just add fuel to the fire of a controversial subject debated for years.
Spanish researchers from the Institut Catala d'Oncologia in Barcelona therefore evaluated this relationship among 300 female subjects and their male partners enrolled in studies in Colombia, Spain, Brazil, Thailand and the Philippines.
Blood samples from the women were tested for C. trachomatis.
The overall prevalence of circumcision was 37 percent among the men, ranging from 1.8 percent in Spain to 92 percent in the Philippines. Women whose partners were circumcised were significantly less likely to be infected with C. trachomatis. This was true across all five countries.
March 1, 1999: After a two year investigation, the American Academy of Pediatrics concluded that the "potential medical benefits of infant circumcision aren't significant enough to recommend circumcision as a routine procedure". Note the word "potential" (no fact!)
"In all studies to date, the risks of circumcision have always exceeded any alleged benefits, a fact that often is not made clear to parents." Circumcision and the Code of Ethics, George C. Denniston, M.D., M.P.H., Humane Health Care International, Vol. 12, No. 2, April 1996.
tricomb, even if you believe the evidence conclusively shows that circumcision reduces STDs or penile cancer, please tell me what that has to do with BABIES?! Do you think a baby is in a risk category for a STD?? The individual, whose body it is, should give his INFORMED CONSENT for this irreversible, controversial procedure.
The British Medical Association, states "there is significant disagreement about whether circumcision is overall a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure. At present, the medical literature on the health, including sexual health, implications of circumcision is contradictory, and often subject to claims of bias in research."
If the foreskin contributes to the spread of HIV, why is the rate of HIV infection over three times lower per capita in Intact Europe (Sweden, UK, France, Finland) compared to the USA? The normal, healthy secretions under the foreskin may actually have a protective effect.
I was cut when I was a baby, and I'm cool with the way my wiener is. Still I'm not going to get my son cut. Theres no good medical reason for it. I'm gonna let it stay the way God made it.
Glad this was done for me when I was young. But shouldn't the baby be under ANY sort of anesthetic? I'm not sure if they use anesthetics in a general hospital or not for a circumcision.
A young baby is NOT normally anaesthetised during hospital circumcisions owing to the risk of side effects associated with anaesthetic. A pharmacist will tell you that babies under 6 months shouldn't normally even be given even ORAL painkillers for pain. In any case, there are no proven benefits of circumcision, which is why it is now discouraged by all Western paediatric societies. It is BABY ABUSE.
NB. the Koran doesn't even mention circumcision (unlike the Bible).
A study, published in the journal Pediatrics in November 2006, followed 510 New Zealand newborns until age 25 and found that circumcision cut the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases by about half.
These studies are just the latest to point to circumcision's potential health benefits.
There have been many over the years showing that circumcised males have lower rates of
urinary tract infections, penile cancer and a variety of STDs, including HIV.
tricomb, you can happily quote the studies YOU CHOOSE to, in order to confirm your biased belief, but there are plenty of good studies done in developed nations that show there is NO EVIDENCE of any reduction in STDs in circumcised men. By the way, the USA has both the highest rate of HIV infection and the highest rate of male circumcision in the industrialized world. Bizarre isn't it according to your theory?
tricomb, circumcision/ intactness are socioeconomic indicators that may relate to differences in sexual behavior, hygienic behavior, and access to medical care. Failure to control for these confounding factors is a frequent source of error in studies.
They have the highest rate of HIV and highest rate of male circumcision, because of the brainwashing that it is for hygenic reasons. So many men probably believe that it lowers the HIV risk so they don't use condoms and end up getting aids. It is conspiracy, doctors want to make money, the pharmaceutical companies want to make money.
Lazy, that's because you don't know any better. The foreskin is highly erogenous and spcialised tissue; a circumcised guy suffers a significant penile sensory deficit. Don't do this to your (future) sons, but let it be their choice.
TORONTO July 2007,(Reuters) - Uncircumcised men receive no more sexual sensation than
circumcised men, according to a new study that contradicts the widely held belief.
Researchers from McGill University in Montreal found that circumcised men felt the same amount of sensitivity to touch and pain in various states of sexual arousal
tricomb, It depends on how thorough the test is and its parameters. The largest and most thorough study I know of, which is published in the April 2007 edition of of BJU International "conclusively shows that circumcised males have a significant penile sensory deficit as compared with non-circumcised intact men." The study, entitled 'Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis' is available to view online.
Even if "the Jury is till out" as to whether there might be a reduction in sexual pleasure in circumcised men, the only sensible decision to make is NOT to force this unnecessary procedure on a baby, unless there is a medical necessity. Parents run the risk of alienating their sons, who may come to realise that their civil rights were breached.
lazy, sseing that you replied to my comment, I advise you to re-consider your position and inform yourself a little of the foreskin's function and anatomy. It is tissue (not just "skin") densely supplied with blood vessels and sensory nerves. Nature did not make a mistake. I hope your decision won't damage your future relationship with your son, who may be angry this unnecessary operation was performed without his informed consent.
TORONTO July 2007,(Reuters) - Uncircumcised men receive no more sexual sensation than
circumcised men, according to a new study that contradicts the widely held belief.
Researchers from McGill University in Montreal found that circumcised men felt the same amount of sensitivity to touch and pain in various states of sexual arousal
tricomb, a THOROUGH study published in the April 2007 edition of of BJU International "conclusively shows that circumcised males have a significant penile sensory deficit as compared with non-circumcised intact men." The study, entitled 'Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis' is available to view online.
To have a healthy discussion is not a bad idea but abusive language doesnt solve anything, there certainly are 2 idealogies about this subject one agaist it and others for it, there are billions of Muslims and Jews who practise this ritual for thousands of years and just because a few people dont, its not going to stop them practising their religion.
Circumcise ONLY for diseases like phimosis.
deividas56 9 months ago
This started with a Stupid Religious Ritual thousands of years ago by Abraham because God Commanded him to do it. Totally unecessary and Really Stupid by adults still practicing this ritual.
ASSBANG6969 10 months ago
@ASSBANG6969 Correct. But in the New Testament, it was no longer required and is not required by God today. (1 Corinthians 7:17)
GeneralSirDouglasMcA 9 months ago
circumcision is soo mainstream in some parts of the world
kenseisato1989 10 months ago
oh my, that looked awful..
Pugzlee08 10 months ago 2
my son underwent circumcision at 1 month old. He had a medical problem that required circumcision. sometimes with conditions you cannot "wait" until the child is old enough to consent. I don't believe in FGM or MGM but if it is done as a medical necessity then i believe that people shouldn't be chastised for it.
Unicorness2005 11 months ago
@Unicorness2005 im sorry to tell you, but there is a very good chance that your child didnt actually need a circumcision. in the united states, doctors dont know what to do with the foreskin except to cut it off, so if your son had any kind of slight issue, the doctor probably had no clue of what to do other than perform a circ. medically necessary circs are extremly, extremely rare and are NEVER needed in the neonatal period. not judging you, just letting you know.
ILoveFriedFetus 10 months ago
@Unicorness2005 agree with the other guy, they wrongly diagnosed. did you ever find out what that "problem" was supposed to be?
ballm0use 9 months ago
Poor Kid :(
prettygirlsavage615 1 year ago 3
I hope he grows to put you in a home and sells off everything you own. And then forgets to even visit you.
mornnwudy 1 year ago 3
I have a friend who is Muslim and his sons are INTACT, the way Allah intended. Please get educated, because NOT every male Jew or Muslim does this to their sons: Jews Against Circumcision is an organization trying to have it stopped by Jews, for Jews. Circumcision is not mentioned in the Qur'an and there are arguments from the Qur'an which opposes male circumcision, many Qur'an alone followers adhere to this principle and argue circumcision to be against the Qur'an.
Xakana 1 year ago
Not only are they being cruel, they're doing it with no gloves?!! Poor child
thavynator 1 year ago
People are such, Crybabys? This helps a child (reduces infection chance and cancer chance) BUT who have these damb activist idiots who cry thisis wrong, It makes no change in sexual feelings and some men get it done a a older age, this may not seem humain but thier only helping so people like that need to shut up and actually learn about the human body before hey start bitc****
JacquesVontoui 1 year ago
infant is crying because he injected the fluid too fast!
kcrae82 1 year ago
I believe some males would be glad about having their genitals mutilated but in Africa people are fighting against 'female genital mutilation' (FMG) ... so why would 'male genital mutilation' (MGM) be a right thing to do! huh? I say there is a lack of logic !! At least wait till the kid is old enough to say what he thinks about it/or the O.K word... or else this is as much a violation of the human right in anycase as the FMG !
2lucky4ever 1 year ago
Most men around the world have this done. And they are glad it was done. It's extremely common in the U.S., thank goodness, regardless of faith.
denalaurens 1 year ago
@denalaurens are you aware that your statement that "most men around the world have this done" is incorrect. Only 15% of the men in the world are cut. Do some reasearch before you put incorrect facts on the internet please. This is after all an important topic
JPPolachek 1 year ago 4
@denalaurens wow lieing for the cause huh? dont listen to this jerk. ONLY 20% of the world does this at all including america and the new quest to force africa to do it saying that it will save them which it wont. most where it happens is caused by mulsilums, jews, and white ppl, and others caused by white and cultural influence. personally i am but i still have a ring left on the shaft which is a mirical. foreskin is great feels way better and shoulded be removed. u sickos torturing infants
kingdomheartsss 1 year ago 2
i my self was circumcised as and infant due 2 medical reasons that being my bell was to big and was gettin infected and swollen iam now 27 yrs old had lots of partners none of whom complained at least to my knowlage and im about to become a father for the first time btw i remember the op but not the pain so hardly a scar on my life isit and masterbation is possible and fun just like everyone else i suppose
beefy10183 1 year ago
@beefy10183
u sure as hell have a grammar and spelling problem
Ninnisworld2901 1 year ago
and you filmed this for...what reason//??
Ayanapeace 1 year ago
@Ayanapeace it has a ton of medical value.
karelsson 1 year ago
why fix something when its not broken...plus takin a shower everyday will keep ur penis clean
dariocarocentral08 1 year ago 4
They are called "PRIVATE PARTS" for a reason. Respect everyone's right to bodily integrity. The foreskin has tens of thousands of sexually responsive nerves.
whatUneverknew 2 years ago
Ummm there is one thing that isn't correct with this 'ritual'. First of all I'm very much against it due to universal human rights, but also... in Judaism they are not permitted to use pain killers during the procedure. I guess if you're going to break the rules at one point, why do it at all?
rachelswanson 2 years ago
Isn't this traumatic for the poor baby??? I think this can leave in his brain so much trauma. I do not agree on this type of procedures, but if they can't wait till the baby is a man and can decide. Can at least they put the baby to seel so that he does not feel any pain??? Or pain is necessary so that this procedure can be effective??? Peace!
roberes34 2 years ago
I am circumcised, mine isn't senseless, it feels great!
But watching this sucks, I hate babies crying, not cool man.
I'm not against it, but just let the kid decide whether they will or not
bryceb3ar 2 years ago
i say, better of doing it as a baby, I my self had it done when i was a baby. and im glad, id rather it done then , then if i was older and deside to get it done. ask any cercomsized male if they are unhappy that they are cercomsized, exactly
pataricky 2 years ago
they didnt even do the circumcision, the baby was just getting his shots. what is everyone so upset about?
stillrightorwrong 2 years ago
just leave em alone, its ther religion and beliefs and its not for you to judge.
rocco5091 2 years ago
Word came to me of a sadistic female MD who injects anesthesia (VERY painful) the day BEFORE she comes in to rip off a boy's penis, she laughed "so he can have the full pain of both punitive experiences!" Then she sells the cut off foreskin as a lucite paperweight to wives of rich guess who's.
skirts365 2 years ago
1 we are born with it its there for a reason why take it away
2 only time i would do it if i realy needed to
3 the kews only do it becuase one of them long time ago said: oh! this dont look right! lets cut it off. it plain ol stupid i swear i would go crazy if i saw you in realy life
robvandamrocks 2 years ago
Dr.John Taylor The frenulum Delta shows dartos muscle tenses when erect creating a solid skin tube where any action on it is transferred to the erogenous ridged band so thus transferred through its loop to the nexus the frenulum. No action on the shaft is wasted. Circ. cuts off all the ridged band and most or all of the frenulum. Shaft action is wasted and must be directly acted upon the frenulum remnant.
US doctors bring out circ. to fight the disease of the day. It's calle the "pony express".
kotfrank 2 years ago
The foreskin is first line of defense of the immune system. Langerhans cells secrete Langerin that kills HIV dead. Sorrells et al. study shows circ. cuts off the most sensitive parts and 75% of the sexual receptors. read circumstitions.
kotfrank 2 years ago
What you do with your own body is your business, this is intrusing into the childs own body, because YOU think its a good thing to do. What if the child will grow up and become an atheist, hinduist, christian or any other practitioner who don't believe in circumsition?
Egrimm82 2 years ago
thats horrible! Can't belive that anyone could do this to a baby
Liisu1984 2 years ago 5
only the worst of the worst parents would do this to their child.
drealgrin 2 years ago
Now after watching this, I will never allow this to happen to my future son. I'll leave that up to him when he's older.
munoz180 2 years ago 8
you are a good person :)
drealgrin 2 years ago
@munoz180 my mother decided to wait for my brother to decide on his own after having her first son done as an infant. She wish she would not have waited, for having the operation at a later age was far more traumatic for my brother, and far more painful for him as well. It is a well documented fact that the ability to feel pain in the fist six weeks of life is very minimal in skin, so maybe do a little more research before you decide. My brother would say do it in the fist week.His son was.
Oreocremerocks 1 year ago
@munoz180 my mother decided to wait for my brother to decide on his own after having her first son done as an infant. She wish she would not have waited, for having the operation at a later age was far more traumatic for my brother, and far more painful for him as well. It is a well documented fact that the ability to feel pain in the fist six weeks of life is very minimal in skin, so maybe do a little more research before you decide. My brother would say do it in the fist week.His son was.
Oreocremerocks 1 year ago
I consider myself a person of hard stomach that have and can watch almost anything. Watching this made me sick. I dont understand how someone is able to cause so much pain to his/her baby. those in favor do an e.xperiment take a knife and make a cut somewhere in your genitals and see how it feels
hixlander 2 years ago
Furthermore, the nation with one of the lowest rates of cervical cancer globally is FINLAND, which happens to also have about the LOWEST rate of male circumcision (less than 1%). You can easily google this info.
psandbergnz 2 years ago
On the matter of Religion and Circumcision, if god did not want boys born with foreskins why were they born with them!
beckyuk2001 2 years ago 2
I have a problem with ALL infant genital mutilation for any reason. That is because the arbitrary nature of infant genital mutilation strips a helpless child of a basic human right, the right to their whole body to do with ONLY as they see fit. And this argument subsumes all other arguments because even if genital mutilation were useful....somehow....it still would not give parents or a doctor the right to modify someones body without their consent. That is taking away a part of who we are.
Brownyman 3 years ago 97
right on brownyman if they could make a law against it then i wouldn't have to suffer for "my parents decision" or ALOT!!!!!!!!!!!!! of compensation (100,000,000) .you know because its my Fucking body part not there's it also lessens sensations
kingdomheartsss 2 years ago
@Brownyman but their bodies arent truly theirs until they are 18. They cant get a tattoo or a piercing on their own. Why would they be able to decide between circumcision and non circumcision?
karelsson 1 year ago
I don't have any problem with circumcision for medical or cultural reasons, but surely in this century we should be giving infants proper anaesthesia.This film is evidence of wounding with intent. The poor little boy. I am a mother and I can't believe that mothers will allow such barbarism on their newborn sons without question. This is not about culture or religion or hygiene. It's about dignity and respect and compassion.
PixiePieCan 3 years ago 45
PixiePieCan, Circumcision is needless & crime against minors. 3/4th of the worlds male population are not circumsized. Chop the choppers hand and jail them for life.
fraizer57 3 years ago 39
They were giving him proper anesthetic, what do you think was in the needle.
DanteLacey21 2 years ago
@PixiePieCan Circumcision is unnecessary for ANY reason. If there were still Aztecs would you consider it OK for cultural and religious reasons for them to be practicing human sacrifice? We live in a new age. We know more about the function and purpose of the foreskin then ever before. NO ONE has the right to deprive another human being of his bodily integrity for ANY reason. QUESTION CIRCUMCISION.
ilikeoptter 1 year ago 4
most cerival cancers are not caused by the uncircumsized men. I believe that is a ploy from doctors to keep cutting away without any numbing meds for babies. barbaric
soulseeker95 3 years ago 23
I have a question for you; although I am not Muslim and I am not against male circumcision. I had my son circumcised at 2 days old (he is 19 yrs now) because of sanitary reasons; it is a proven fact that women who have uncircumcised partners have the highest incidence of cervical cancer. I am wondering if you or anyone can explain why it is done on women? Thank you! Looking forward to your reply.
Tommyzgrl 3 years ago
I work in the medical community and I dont see how this is possible when cervical cancer is caused by a virus and uncircumsized peni do not carry viruses. I could understand if it was a baceterial thing but thats kind of impossible.
FaeryZen 3 years ago 14
I work in the medical community also--as a paramedic; I didn't make up this data. If it's kind of impossible, maybe you'd care to cite your sources of information for me, so I could correct my seemingly erroneous opinion? Thanks!
Tommyzgrl 3 years ago
I wasnt aware that paramedics were trained in cervical cancer origins. I must be wrong. I'm sorry.
FaeryZen 3 years ago 3
You know, I wasn't being rude to you, and I don't expect you to be rude to me either. I'm a paramedic who loves medicine; therefore, I study it beyond my job capacity. I'm thinking of becoming an RN. Now, if you care to answer my original question sans sarcasm, I would welcome your data so that I could read up on it and be more current. And I notice you chose not to reveal your job title; very interesting...
Tommyzgrl 3 years ago
Your original reply was just as sarcastic as mine was. I dont feel the need to cite my sources as it is common medical knowledge that cervical cancer is caused by a virus. I would also be surprised to find that an uncircumsized penis is responsible for the spread of a virus since I dont see how that is possible.
FaeryZen 3 years ago 9
I also didnt feel the need to state my job title because its not important. Lets just say that I started as a paramedic and went further with my education but Im not an RN. Hows that? I didnt mean my original post to sound accusatory in any way. I was simply stating what I new and doubting how your statement was possible.
FaeryZen 3 years ago 6
An uncircumsized penis may make it more likely to transmit the virus only because the foreskin keeps the glans dark, warm, and moist. Condoms as we all know help prevent disease. Circumcision is not the answer for this or better hygiene. Parents need to get off their lazy asses and start teaching boys how to use soap and water-we teach little girls how to wash
gina4827 2 years ago 5
No you are not wrong. The paremedics are trained to lie to people. Cervical cancer comes from a virus like HPV and any man circumcised or not can catch it. A clean man can't give a woman cancer. Even an uncircumcised man that doesn't wash his penis for a year will not give a woman cancer, maybe a bacterial infection but not cancer. It is even unlikely that a woman can catch a bacterial infection because the smegma in the foreskin has immunilogical defenses whcich kills germs.
TheYellowtulip 2 years ago
No you are not wrong. A clean penis can't give a woman cancer. Cancer is not contagious. HPV causes cervical cancer and it is a virus. Even if a man has poor hygiene, the only thing he can give a woman is a bacterial infection. Even that is unlikely because the uncircumcised penis is self cleaning. The smegma has immulogical defenses, cells that kills germs.
TheYellowtulip 2 years ago
I'm surprised that you don't know that the medical community makes up these lies in order to convince patients to circumcise. It is a money making scam. Uncircumcised penises are born clean and stay clean unless they catch a disease. It is common sense to a normal person. Cancer is not contagious and cut man is just as likely to catch any disease because all it takes is exchange of bodily fluids to enter the opening of the penis regardless whether there is foreskin or not.
TheYellowtulip 2 years ago
Uncircumsized penises do carry viruses. I do not see how you can say this when you are in the "medical community". AIDS, herpes, and HPV all are viruses that can be carried by circumsized or uncircumsized penises. The best way to avoid these diseases and the ones caused by bacteria is not to circumsize but the wear a CONDOM!!!
alienkittens 2 years ago 5
@alienkittens are you saying this because you are a doctor
there is lots of info and new studies that say it doesn't
videowatcheer 1 year ago
@alienkittens are you saying this because you are a doctor
there is lots of info and new studies that say it doesn't
videowatcheer 1 year ago
Tommyzgirl, your claim "as a fact" that women with uncirc'ed partners are more prone to cervical cancer is bunkum!
European nations are over 90%UNcircumcised and have about the same cervical cancer rate as the 80% circumcised USA and Canada (see: United Nations Human Development Report 2001). About 7-9 women per 100,000 develop cervical cancer in USA and west Europe p.a.. (Source: United Nations Human Development Report 2001) . Circumcision status doesn't come into the picture!
psandbergnz 2 years ago
Do you have proof that it is a proven fact. Most of these benefits are lies. If there were benefits, USA wouldn't have the highest rate of aids. Most woman complain of problems like UTI infections and soreness from circumcised men. Because circumcised men thrust harder during penetration due to desensitization they cause tears in the vagina which make a woman even more susceptible to diseases.
elaine02270 2 years ago 4
elaine, check the 2007 study from the World Health Organization. There you will find your "proof that it is a proven fact" And your statements are way off. the usa does not have the highest rate of aids, not even close. africa does. Do a little research, read the findings of the World Health Organization.
stillrightorwrong 2 years ago
Doing anything like this to a person, no matter how young, without their permission is wrong. Why not wait until the child is of age, and allow him to make the choice for himself.
I was circumcised as a baby, and am not happy about it. I have been regenerating my foreskin and have seen success. It is there for a reason people, dont question gods design.
duckybaby1986 3 years ago 2
its a circumsition...get the fuck over it..
at least these guys give him anesthetic or freezes it whatever he did...
some parents do it, and some dont...its life
angelpsw2004 3 years ago
Anyone that does that to an innocent baby is a sick human being. There is no reason that any child should have to go through this atrocity any where in this world. That baby was experiencing extreme torture and pain from that needle going in and around his male parts. No adult male could take such torture. DO NO HARM!!!!!
popcorn48622 3 years ago 3
as a mother of a dtr, i couldn't listen to this poor baby cry without almost crying myself!
SMC799 3 years ago 2
" Every male Muslim and Jew has to go thru this ritual."
please make a search for "cutting with tradition"... there is a jewish couple that chose not to circumcise their baby boy!!
NikkieRoxxx 3 years ago
thats just torture right there. leave the baby's penis alone for gods sake!
puplvrhere 3 years ago 6
why does every man that was circumcised from birth not complain but are happy, like me, to have this done....only the uncircumcised people complain about this.... just admit it uncircumcised is unhealthy and disgusting
goretoya 3 years ago
hell no!
yotchsy 3 years ago
U should let the baby decide when he gets older that is not right at all!
santi89z4 3 years ago 3
You are an adult that's your decision, but you cannot make that decision for someone else that can't even talk! I have 5 boys, little boys and I did not circumsise them because that's their decision when they are men, it's not for their mother or father to decide if they need their pee pee cut off
kjsdfklfjskldfj 3 years ago
circumsise yourself then!
kjsdfklfjskldfj 3 years ago
every jew and muslim has to do it? No, almost every jew and muslim is FORCED by their parents!
NikkieRoxxx 4 years ago 6
weel if you ask any jew or muslim i doubt any of them would be complaining.
qwertyass215 3 years ago
That is clearly a form of torture!
kltiswhoib 4 years ago 13
the baby will not remember tis better to do it as a infant
ukaluk 4 years ago
So, after seeing a helpless baby in such pain and distress, you smugly approve of it! No pediatric society even recommends the surgery, and the claimed benefits do not outweigh the associated risks. Intense trauma may be seared into the subconscious, where it can affect subsequent behaviour and perception. Only the owner of the body has the right to consent to this unnecessary operation.
psandbergnz 4 years ago 12
Poor baby is crying his heart out :( I wouldn't do this to my child; never!! It's an unnecessary procedure.
cukiek 4 years ago 9
There is no need of doing this, no medical evidence of its benefits, it's beeing done only because of the way of thinking of some.
urosurosuros 4 years ago 10
parents should wait until their son is an grown up so he can consent,nobody has the right of doing this to a baby who cannot say NO, stop it.
keishlamarieb 4 years ago 10
o gawd.... i couldnt stand to watch... lol
sorrow161 4 years ago 2
I got circumcised today (i'm 16) why do a lot of people keep saying it is going to hurt like hell? It didn't hurt me nor does it hurt now, the only thing I have a problem with are the glands *the penis head*
BizatchInc 4 years ago
joikee, my second question is:
If the evidence clearly shows circumcision is so protective, why isn't there a single Western paediatric society that indicates that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, or indeed that there are significant benefits?
psandbergnz 4 years ago
nobody is saying it is the health miracle of the century, but it does have benefits. If parents want to allow thier son to have those benefits then it is their right to do so. All medical establishments allow parents to make that choice, wether u like it or not..
joikee 4 years ago
joikee, thanks for attempting to answer my question. But I challenge you to find me ONE Western paediatric society that says the benefits of neonatal circumcision outweigh the risks, or indeed that there are proven benefits. Clearly, there is an undeniable LOSS of highly specialised, EROGENOUS tissue, not to mention the trauma of the operation. So, I (pharmacist) say only perform this with the informed consent of the owner of the body.
psandbergnz 4 years ago
Breast-feeding is far more effective in reducing the incidence of UTIs in a baby.
psandbergnz 4 years ago
Note also that it is absolutely fallacious to claim that all studies show that circumcision is protective against STDs. Some studies indicate this, whilst others do not. You also need to take care when interpreting them to consider socioeconomic factors, noting that circumcision is more prevalent in the wealthier groups, which have better access to medical care and are generally better educated.
psandbergnz 4 years ago
they do say benefits and harms are so evenly balanced that the parents will have the right to make that decision. These statements were made back in the late 90's.. since then a number of very good studies have come about showing the benefits. Just reality, try and deal with it.
joikee 4 years ago
joikee, that's not quite correct. Your own country's paediatric society says that "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed". This statement agrees with the position of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians of 2004 and that of the UK. In recommending routine circumcision, you are contradicting their advice. May I ask what your medical credentials are, if any?
psandbergnz 4 years ago
UK: a comprehensive study on sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) involving a large cross-section of Britons was performed in the year 2000.The finding was that there was NO SIGNIFICANT difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men in regard to diagnosis of any of the following STDs: gonorrhoea, Chlamydia trachomatis infection, syphilis, non-specific urethritis, genital herpes, genital warts and trichomoniasis. See Sexually Transmitted Infections, 2003 (Vol. 79) (No. 6) 499-500
psandbergnz 4 years ago
American Journal of Epidemiology,
November 2005 03 November, 2005
Circumcision reduces chlamydia transmission
Circumcised men are less likely to transmit Chlamydia trachomatis infections to their female sexual partners as compared to uncircumcised men.
The most common bacterial cause of sexually transmitted infections, C. trachomatis can
cause severe reproductive complications in women and is associated with increased risk
of cervical cancer.
joikee 4 years ago
joikee, below I have shown, and I can continue to show, many tudies REFUTING that being circumcised reduces STDs. My question remains: If the foreskin contributes to the spread of STDs and HIV in Western countries, why is the rate of HIV infection over three times lower per capita in Intact Europe (Sweden, UK, France, Finland, Denmark) compared to the USA? The normal, healthy secretions under the foreskin may actually have a protective effect.
psandbergnz 4 years ago 3
The foreskin has immunological defenses. A killing enxyme called lysozyme and Langerhans cells are epithelial cells that protect the penis from sexually transmitted diseases. Saliva also kills the aids virus because of its low salt content.
elaine02270 2 years ago 4
@elaine02270 Saliva does not kill cells infected with HIV. Thats really irresponsible of you.
Freshhhhh1982 2 years ago
The relationship between male circumcision and C. trachomatis infection in the female
partner has not been explored earlier. Spanish researchers from the Institut Catala
d'Oncologia in Barcelona therefore evaluated this relationship among 300 female subjects
and their male partners enrolled in studies in Colombia, Spain, Brazil, Thailand and the
Philippines. Blood samples from the women were tested for C. trachomatis.
joikee 4 years ago
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Academy of Family Practitioners and the American Medical Association have all published statements not supporting routine neonatal circumcision. These are echoed by medical organizations all over the world, including the Australian Association of Paediatric Surgeons, which said on circumcision: "We do not support the removal of healthy tissue, unless there are definite indications to justify the complications and risks which may arise."
psandbergnz 4 years ago
The Canadian Paediatric Society declared its position on circumcision in 1996, saying that "circumcision of newborns should NOT be routinely performed." This statement agrees with the Royal Australasian College of Physicians concurs, which advised parents in 2004 that it "does not recommend circumcision for newborn boys".
psandbergnz 4 years ago
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians states there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision.
psandbergnz 4 years ago
Another study, published in the journal Pediatrics in November 2006, followed 510 New Zealand
newborns until age 25 and found that circumcision cut the risk of contracting sexually
transmitted diseases by about half.
These studies are just the latest to point to circumcision's potential health benefits.
There have been many over the years showing that circumcised males have lower rates of urinary
tract infections, penile cancer and a variety of STDs, including HIV.
tricomb222 4 years ago
yeah, tricomb, you're starting to repeat yourself again. Are we just going to continue copying and pasting reports to disprove the each others' views? WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER THIS: If the evidence clearly shows circumcision is so protective, why isn't there a single Western paediatric society that can CLEARLY say the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, or indeed that there are significant benefits? PLEASE ANSWER!
psandbergnz 4 years ago
Even if there was some decreased sensitivity, so what. Just that fact that there is "never"
a build up of cheesy oily paste(in circumcised )and there is less chance of tares and abrasions, painful retraction etc.
tricomb222 4 years ago
(Urology. 2004 Jan;63(1):155-8.) also found no significant differences in sexual
function except that mean ejaculatory latency time was prolonged (though less than
a minute difference) after circumcision; that outcome was considered to be an advantage rather than a complication.
tricomb222 4 years ago
A recent study (J Sex Med 2007 Apr 6) found no differences in genital sensitivity between
uncircumcised and circumcised men, And yet another study (Urol Int. 2005;75(1):62-6.) found
that penile sensation subjectively worsened in 18% following circumcision but improved in 38%.
tricomb222 4 years ago
A comparative analysis of uncircumcised and circumcised men using a battery of quantitative
somatosensory tests at the glans penis found no significant differences in penile sensitivity
between the two (Urology. 2005 Apr;65(4):773-7),
tricomb222 4 years ago
The Lauman study (JAMA. 1997 Apr 2;277(13):1052-7) found that uncircumcised men had an
increased risk of sexual dysfunction, especially later in life. As an aside, circumcised
men received more fellatio and masturbated more.
A recent published study from Australia surveying thousands of men (Int J STD AIDS. 2006 Aug;17(8):547-54.) found that circumcised men experienced less physical pain during
intercourse and had fewer difficulties keeping an erection.
tricomb222 4 years ago
Circumcision desensitizes: Circumcision desensitizes the penis radically. Foreskin amputation means severing the rich nerve network and all the nerve receptors in the foreskin itself. Circumcision almost always damages the frenulum. The loss of the protective foreskin with time leads to desensitization of the glans, since it keratinises (hardens). J. A. Erickson, "Three Zones of Penile Skin. "In M. M. Lander, "The Human Prep
sandbergnz 4 years ago
Tricomb and others can certainly find studies that suggest there is a protective role for circumcision. But is is also easy to find studies showing that this view is weak and untenable, as I show below. The authority best placed to interpret ALL the findings is paediatric societies. Interestingly, NONE OF THEM recommend routine circumcision, because there is no evidence that any potential benefits outweigh the risk of this invasive and painful surgery.
sandbergnz 4 years ago
Laumann et al. reviewed data from the National Health and Social Life Survey (USA). They found NO EVIDENCE of a protective role for circumcision - in fact the reverse! ABSENCE of the foreskin was significantly associated with bacterial STDs among men who had many sexual partners. More Chlamydia infections were in the circumcised group (as %)than for the intact men. Also, herpes was 14.9/1000 in circumcised males compared with 8.1/1000 in intact males.
Circumcision in USA: JAMA 1997;277:1052-7
sandbergnz 4 years ago
Female partners of circumcised men do NOT report a lower rate of cervical cancer, nor is there sound evidence that circumcision prevents penile cancer. The following, recent study shows that the penile cancer rate is higher in the US than in Denmark, where circumcision, except among Middle Eastern immigrant workers, is almost unheard of. M. Frisch et al., "Falling Incidence of Penis Cancer in an Uncircumcised Population (Denmark 1943-90)," British Medical Journal 311 (1995): 1471.
sandbergnz 4 years ago 2
Archives of Dermatology
Arch Dermatol. 2000;136:350-354.
Conclusions Most cases of inflammatory dermatoses were diagnosed in uncircumcised men,
suggesting that circumcision protects against inflammatory dermatoses. The presence of
the foreskin may promote inflammation by a köebnerization phenomenon, or the presence of
infectious agents, as yet unidentified, may induce inflammation.
tricomb222 4 years ago
Circumcision does NOT prevent acquisition or transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). In fact, the US has both the highest percentage of sexually active circumcised males in the Western world and the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.
sandbergnz 4 years ago 2
Many studies show that American men are at a greater risk for bacterial and viral STDs, especially gonorrhea, non-gonoccal urethritis. human papilloma virus, herpes simplex virus type and Chlamydia than European men. (B. Donovan et al., "Male Circumcision and Common Sexually Transmissible Diseases in a Developed Nation Setting," Genitourinary Medicine 70 (1994): 317-320)
sandbergnz 4 years ago
04/10/2002
Circumcision lowers risk of cervical cancer
By Rita Rubin, USA TODAY
Women whose sexual partners are circumcised are less likely to develop cervical cancer than the partners of uncircumcised men, concludes a report out today.
tricomb222 4 years ago
This is the biggest scam. The only way for a partner to develop cervical cancer is if their partner has hpv. Only a condom prevents HPV.
elaine02270 2 years ago 2
The difference was statistically significant only in the partners of men considered to be at high risk for infection with human papillomavirus, or HPV, according to the study in The New England Journal of Medicine. Such men had had at least six sexual partners in their lifetime, beginning before age 17.
tricomb222 4 years ago
Circumcision does not dull sensitivity: study
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last Updated: 2003-04-29 10:32:15 -0400 (Reuters Health)
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Circumcised men appear to have the same degree of penis sensitivity as men who are uncircumcised, a new study suggests -- in a finding that will probably just add fuel to the fire of a controversial subject debated for years.
tricomb222 4 years ago
American Journal of Epidemiology,
November 2005
Circumcised men are less likely to transmit Chlamydia trachomatis infections to their female sexual partners as compared to uncircumcised men.
The relationship between male circumcision and C. trachomatis infection in the female partner has not been explored earlier.
tricomb222 4 years ago
Spanish researchers from the Institut Catala d'Oncologia in Barcelona therefore evaluated this relationship among 300 female subjects and their male partners enrolled in studies in Colombia, Spain, Brazil, Thailand and the Philippines.
tricomb222 4 years ago
Blood samples from the women were tested for C. trachomatis.
The overall prevalence of circumcision was 37 percent among the men, ranging from 1.8 percent in Spain to 92 percent in the Philippines. Women whose partners were circumcised were significantly less likely to be infected with C. trachomatis. This was true across all five countries.
tricomb222 4 years ago
March 1, 1999: After a two year investigation, the American Academy of Pediatrics concluded that the "potential medical benefits of infant circumcision aren't significant enough to recommend circumcision as a routine procedure". Note the word "potential" (no fact!)
sandbergnz 4 years ago
"In all studies to date, the risks of circumcision have always exceeded any alleged benefits, a fact that often is not made clear to parents." Circumcision and the Code of Ethics, George C. Denniston, M.D., M.P.H., Humane Health Care International, Vol. 12, No. 2, April 1996.
sandbergnz 4 years ago
tricomb, even if you believe the evidence conclusively shows that circumcision reduces STDs or penile cancer, please tell me what that has to do with BABIES?! Do you think a baby is in a risk category for a STD?? The individual, whose body it is, should give his INFORMED CONSENT for this irreversible, controversial procedure.
sandbergnz 4 years ago 2
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians states there is NO MEDICAL INDICATION FOR ROUTINE NEONATAL CIRCUMCISION.
sandbergnz 4 years ago
The British Medical Association, states "there is significant disagreement about whether circumcision is overall a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure. At present, the medical literature on the health, including sexual health, implications of circumcision is contradictory, and often subject to claims of bias in research."
sandbergnz 4 years ago 2
If the foreskin contributes to the spread of HIV, why is the rate of HIV infection over three times lower per capita in Intact Europe (Sweden, UK, France, Finland) compared to the USA? The normal, healthy secretions under the foreskin may actually have a protective effect.
sandbergnz 4 years ago
Male Circumcision, Penile Human Papillomavirus Infection, and Cervical Cancer in Female Partners
The New England Journal of Medicine
Volume 346:1105-1112 April 11, 2002 Number 15
Conclusions Male circumcision is associated with a reduced risk of penile HPV
infection and, in the case of men with a history of multiple sexual partners,
a reduced risk of cervical cancer in their
current female partners.
tricomb222 4 years ago
I was cut when I was a baby, and I'm cool with the way my wiener is. Still I'm not going to get my son cut. Theres no good medical reason for it. I'm gonna let it stay the way God made it.
damwmnm 4 years ago 4
Glad this was done for me when I was young. But shouldn't the baby be under ANY sort of anesthetic? I'm not sure if they use anesthetics in a general hospital or not for a circumcision.
RocknMike 4 years ago
A young baby is NOT normally anaesthetised during hospital circumcisions owing to the risk of side effects associated with anaesthetic. A pharmacist will tell you that babies under 6 months shouldn't normally even be given even ORAL painkillers for pain. In any case, there are no proven benefits of circumcision, which is why it is now discouraged by all Western paediatric societies. It is BABY ABUSE.
NB. the Koran doesn't even mention circumcision (unlike the Bible).
psandbergnz 4 years ago 2
A study, published in the journal Pediatrics in November 2006, followed 510 New Zealand newborns until age 25 and found that circumcision cut the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases by about half.
These studies are just the latest to point to circumcision's potential health benefits.
There have been many over the years showing that circumcised males have lower rates of
urinary tract infections, penile cancer and a variety of STDs, including HIV.
tricomb222 4 years ago
tricomb, you can happily quote the studies YOU CHOOSE to, in order to confirm your biased belief, but there are plenty of good studies done in developed nations that show there is NO EVIDENCE of any reduction in STDs in circumcised men. By the way, the USA has both the highest rate of HIV infection and the highest rate of male circumcision in the industrialized world. Bizarre isn't it according to your theory?
sandbergnz 4 years ago 2
tricomb, circumcision/ intactness are socioeconomic indicators that may relate to differences in sexual behavior, hygienic behavior, and access to medical care. Failure to control for these confounding factors is a frequent source of error in studies.
sandbergnz 4 years ago
They have the highest rate of HIV and highest rate of male circumcision, because of the brainwashing that it is for hygenic reasons. So many men probably believe that it lowers the HIV risk so they don't use condoms and end up getting aids. It is conspiracy, doctors want to make money, the pharmaceutical companies want to make money.
elaine02270 2 years ago
It's acatully healthier for men to get this done, they can get infections if they don't
Lauralu89XoX 4 years ago
i don't get what so wrong about this, i've had it done when i was born and i love the results
LazySniper 4 years ago
Lazy, that's because you don't know any better. The foreskin is highly erogenous and spcialised tissue; a circumcised guy suffers a significant penile sensory deficit. Don't do this to your (future) sons, but let it be their choice.
psandbergnz 4 years ago 4
TORONTO July 2007,(Reuters) - Uncircumcised men receive no more sexual sensation than
circumcised men, according to a new study that contradicts the widely held belief.
Researchers from McGill University in Montreal found that circumcised men felt the same amount of sensitivity to touch and pain in various states of sexual arousal
as those with foreskins.
tricomb222 4 years ago
tricomb, It depends on how thorough the test is and its parameters. The largest and most thorough study I know of, which is published in the April 2007 edition of of BJU International "conclusively shows that circumcised males have a significant penile sensory deficit as compared with non-circumcised intact men." The study, entitled 'Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis' is available to view online.
sandbergnz 4 years ago 3
Even if "the Jury is till out" as to whether there might be a reduction in sexual pleasure in circumcised men, the only sensible decision to make is NOT to force this unnecessary procedure on a baby, unless there is a medical necessity. Parents run the risk of alienating their sons, who may come to realise that their civil rights were breached.
sandbergnz 4 years ago 3
How in the hell a circ man can compare how intact sex if he isn't himself?
NikkieRoxxx 3 years ago
to bad i am getting them circumcised my son
LazySniper 4 years ago
lazy, sseing that you replied to my comment, I advise you to re-consider your position and inform yourself a little of the foreskin's function and anatomy. It is tissue (not just "skin") densely supplied with blood vessels and sensory nerves. Nature did not make a mistake. I hope your decision won't damage your future relationship with your son, who may be angry this unnecessary operation was performed without his informed consent.
psandbergnz 4 years ago 8
TORONTO July 2007,(Reuters) - Uncircumcised men receive no more sexual sensation than
circumcised men, according to a new study that contradicts the widely held belief.
Researchers from McGill University in Montreal found that circumcised men felt the same amount of sensitivity to touch and pain in various states of sexual arousal
as those with foreskins.
tricomb222 4 years ago
tricomb, a THOROUGH study published in the April 2007 edition of of BJU International "conclusively shows that circumcised males have a significant penile sensory deficit as compared with non-circumcised intact men." The study, entitled 'Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis' is available to view online.
sandbergnz 4 years ago
that had to be really painful i feel sorry for this kid
boymagnet17 4 years ago 3
To have a healthy discussion is not a bad idea but abusive language doesnt solve anything, there certainly are 2 idealogies about this subject one agaist it and others for it, there are billions of Muslims and Jews who practise this ritual for thousands of years and just because a few people dont, its not going to stop them practising their religion.
ashrafji 4 years ago
okay then let me ask why you video taped it and shared it with the world, that is violating this child
perkypuppet 4 years ago
If you can not be civil with your comments dont bother.
ashrafji 4 years ago