I heard someone say he want to circumcise his son so that they would match. He didn't want the little feller (his son) to be confused about his litter feller.

I thought this was a pretty odd justification for traumatizing a new born.

I suppose if he'd lost an arm in an accident, he'd be wanting to chop his kid's arm off so they'd match?

also

We haven't had one of these threads in a while.

It isn't one of these threads - yet.

I've been circumcised and I am not traumatized at all from it. Personally I am glad I am. Not much a fan of the extra skin and much easier for hygiene. You know, just because it's origins are religious, more so cultural, doesn't mean it's evil and should be shunned.

Michael Dunn wrote:I heard someone say he want to circumcise his son so that they would match. He didn't want the little feller (his son) to be confused about his litter feller.

I thought this was a pretty odd justification for traumatizing a new born.

If he doesn't flash his dick to his son there won't be a problem.

JWG wrote:I've been circumcised and I am not traumatized at all from it. Personally I am glad I am. Not much a fan of the extra skin and much easier for hygiene. You know, just because it's origins are religious, more so cultural, doesn't mean it's evil and should be shunned.

Personally I prefer washing over amputation as a method for easier hygene.

Paul G wrote:

Michael Dunn wrote:I heard someone say he want to circumcise his son so that they would match. He didn't want the little feller (his son) to be confused about his litter feller.

I thought this was a pretty odd justification for traumatizing a new born.

If he doesn't flash his dick to his son there won't be a problem.

Surely it can't be THAT easy?

trubble76 wrote:

JWG wrote:I've been circumcised and I am not traumatized at all from it. Personally I am glad I am. Not much a fan of the extra skin and much easier for hygiene. You know, just because it's origins are religious, more so cultural, doesn't mean it's evil and should be shunned.

Personally I prefer washing over amputation as a method for easier hygene.

Surely it can't be THAT easy?

Me = intact... All the cool nerves still belong to me.

I echoed anti-circumcision info I got from people here to some Norwegian friends, and made the statement that I thought there were few hygienic reasons for circumcision. They disagreed - in fact, two of the 8 male Norwegians I worked with had to have circumcisions at fairly advanced years due to recurring infections (9 y/o )

So I'm back to being in the "needs more study" camp. Certainly wanting your kid's junk to look just like yours is a silly reason, though.

Weaver wrote:I echoed anti-circumcision info I got from people here to some Norwegian friends, and made the statement that I thought there were few hygienic reasons for circumcision. They disagreed - in fact, two of the 8 male Norwegians I worked with had to have circumcisions at fairly advanced years due to recurring infections (9 y/o )

So I'm back to being in the "needs more study" camp. Certainly wanting your kid's junk to look just like yours is a silly reason, though.

If I suffered from repeated infections, for example tonsilitis, I would consider having my tonsils removed. I would not have my newborn's tonsils removed prior to any evidence of a problem. The same applies to all amputations, no matter how harmless they supposedly are. Meeting two blokes that professed recurrent infections is such a piss weak reason to consider removal of part of a baby's penis.
Personally, I would require some pretty strong evidence before I could be convinced that a piece of my child should be surgically removed.

I posted this before...

I think that we should just chop people's heads off at birth - that way they won't ever get any infections. You can't get infected body parts if you don't have a body to be infected.

trubble76 wrote:

Weaver wrote:I echoed anti-circumcision info I got from people here to some Norwegian friends, and made the statement that I thought there were few hygienic reasons for circumcision. They disagreed - in fact, two of the 8 male Norwegians I worked with had to have circumcisions at fairly advanced years due to recurring infections (9 y/o )

So I'm back to being in the "needs more study" camp. Certainly wanting your kid's junk to look just like yours is a silly reason, though.

If I suffered from repeated infections, for example tonsilitis, I would consider having my tonsils removed. I would not have my newborn's tonsils removed prior to any evidence of a problem. The same applies to all amputations, no matter how harmless they supposedly are. Meeting two blokes that professed recurrent infections is such a piss weak reason to consider removal of part of a baby's penis.

However, if it could be shown that a significant percentage of the population requires circumcision at later age to correct recurring infections - with the increased pain and mental trauma involved - it might be sufficient reason. Particularly if these infections resulted in tissue damage ...

Personally, I would require some pretty strong evidence before I could be convinced that a piece of my child should be surgically removed.

I agree 100% - that's why I say it "needs more study". There needs to be good clinical research performed here, and a journey away from only anecdotal "evidence" which is ruling the debate now.

For me, the subject is academic - I won't be having any kids to worry about making this decision. But I am still interested in establishing strong scientific reasons for any given pathway.

How many people need foreskin removal due to later life infections? I can't imagine it being high enough to warrant infant circumsion, certainly no more than tonsil infections.

It also depends on why these infections occur i.e is it lack of cleaning?

Weaver wrote:I echoed anti-circumcision info I got from people here to some Norwegian friends, and made the statement that I thought there were few hygienic reasons for circumcision. They disagreed - in fact, two of the 8 male Norwegians I worked with had to have circumcisions at fairly advanced years due to recurring infections (9 y/o )

So I'm back to being in the "needs more study" camp. Certainly wanting your kid's junk to look just like yours is a silly reason, though.

The idea that you lose a lot of feeling afterwards is an individual case-by-case thing.

Weaver wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

Weaver wrote:I echoed anti-circumcision info I got from people here to some Norwegian friends, and made the statement that I thought there were few hygienic reasons for circumcision. They disagreed - in fact, two of the 8 male Norwegians I worked with had to have circumcisions at fairly advanced years due to recurring infections (9 y/o )

So I'm back to being in the "needs more study" camp. Certainly wanting your kid's junk to look just like yours is a silly reason, though.

If I suffered from repeated infections, for example tonsilitis, I would consider having my tonsils removed. I would not have my newborn's tonsils removed prior to any evidence of a problem. The same applies to all amputations, no matter how harmless they supposedly are. Meeting two blokes that professed recurrent infections is such a piss weak reason to consider removal of part of a baby's penis.

However, if it could be shown that a significant percentage of the population requires circumcision at later age to correct recurring infections - with the increased pain and mental trauma involved - it might be sufficient reason. Particularly if these infections resulted in tissue damage ...

That would be a start, but it's a pretty big "if". If jesus would transport me to the garden of eden and give me a run down of life, the universe and everything before rematerialising me next to my shiny new DB9, it might be sufficient reason to be a christian. Neither is forthcoming.

Personally, I would require some pretty strong evidence before I could be convinced that a piece of my child should be surgically removed.

I agree 100% - that's why I say it "needs more study". There needs to be good clinical research performed here, and a journey away from only anecdotal "evidence" which is ruling the debate now.

For me, the subject is academic - I won't be having any kids to worry about making this decision. But I am still interested in establishing strong scientific reasons for any given pathway.

My problem with that is that there has been a fair amount of study, largely supporting the obvious conclusion that you probably shouldn't cut part of your children's genitals off.

I understand what Weaver's saying, but I'd have to say that I've never seen any studies which suggest there's a significant enough number of people requiring it later in life due to infections to warrant genital mutilation of infants.

(On a side note, my hubby wanted to get it done as an adult when he converted to fundamentalist Christianity, "Just in case the First Covenant hasn't been fully revoked by the coming of Jesus." ... I talked him out of it.)

I'm normal as evolution intended me. I'm happy with interventions to fix problems but nature has been at the sex business for millions of years longer than we have had small sharp knives and I imagine (I could be wrong) that something as critical to the survival of the species as a penis will have its shape and function highly selected for.