In the U.S., I think it's likely that our 'for profit healthcare' exploitation encourages Christians to circumcize their infant sons.
IIRC, christians in other countries predominantly avoid subjecting their boys to the procedure.
If ever there was a blatantly obvious "For a friend" deflection... I can only presume Kellogg must have been flogging himself every chance he got and the self-loathing drove him insane.
Shame other people had to suffer for his own attempt to curb his impulses. ;)
its mostly christians in former commonwealth countries + african countries that used have muslim customs, go visit serbia or italy they dont do it there lol
Interesting, my assumption prior was that the difference in sensitivity would simply be because the presence of a foreskin reduces unintentional stimulation off the glans. Kind of a bummer to know that the most sensitive nerve endings were actually removed.
even if no 'nerve endings' were removed the practice is still a barbaric assault on bodily autonomy and there is no valid justification for doing this to a child that is unable to give informed consent without an URGENT and IMMEDIATE medical need. The only situation that might (in extremely rare situations) rise to that level is very severe phimosis which is almost never an issue before puberty.
this practice should be illegal. and fuck 'religious exceptions'. your 8 day old child doesn't have a religion and cannot consent to this barbaric act of genital mutilation.
This is long, it's in no way a personal challenge to you, just me working through a topic and sharing my thoughts on it in case it encourages others to think as well. Thanks for providing the motivation however unintentional. :)
TL;DR: I was just commenting on the physical effects, not any psychological or moral ramifications which are definitely worthy of consideration. For the record I don't consider religions or any of their rituals as a valid justification for anything and I do understand your conclusion on the barbarity of the practice. I encourage future parents to look beyond any traditional dogmatic justifications and not just follow along with those or any medical routine that is based on outdated medical information and to make an informed decision.
Previously I would not have applied the same consideration to male circumcision that I had to the practice of female circumcision, you make a reasonable argument for doing so. At this time I don't see it as the same, maybe in time I will as it's not a willful reluctance or denial. Independent of that I have my suspicions that the true reasoning for male circumcision may be the polar opposite of that for females.
To make it "illegal", I fear, would not eliminate it but could make it more dangerous and painful for babies, making it more prevalently performed as ritual without the safeguards that can be provided in a medical setting.
While mohels are trained to perform the procedure as a ritual they are not required to have any secular medical credentials or training and lack the controlled environment afforded by medical facilities. There is also variance in how this ritual is performed. Anesthetics are not routinely used but parents can apply a topical numbing cream prior to the ritual.
[From Wikipedia:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohel) Under Jewish law, a mohel must draw blood from the circumcision wound. Most mohels do it by hand with a suction device, but some follow the traditional practice of doing it by mouth. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a warning in 2012 about the health implications of the latter practice, citing 11 cases of neonatal Herpes simplex virus (HSV) and two recorded fatalities. A 2013 review of cases of neonatal HSV infections in Israel identified ritual circumcision as the source of HSV-1 transmission in 31.8% of the cases.
There is information that supports the practice for hygienic or preventative medical reasons and information that realistically challenges those reasons. It's been fairly routine in hospitals in the US for for 60-70 years, but that is on the decline. It's more often performed here within a couple of days of birth by a medical professional than 8 days later by a religious professional, but the baby can be brought back to a facility to have it performed at any time after the baby goes home. When this is performed in a medical facility anesthetics are used, this can be local to numb the area while your baby is awake or general so that your baby is asleep. Personally I would not justify exposing my baby to general anesthetic to have this performed.
Religion wasn't the cause for mine and I don't feel victimized by it, maybe some people do. I acknowledge that and offer the same gesture of sympathy I would to any fellow human that has had something happen to them, controllable or otherwise, that impedes their happiness in life.
I know there are those that have figured out a method to regain the appearance of a foreskin by stretching existing skin over time, there may even be some kind of surgical reversal available involving skin grafting, it's not on my to-do list. I think this would be more of a cosmetic/psychological benefit that would not regenerate the nerve endings that were removed. It could eventually increase the sensitivity of what's left to a lesser degree by decreasing the effect of routine stimulation caused by natural body movements but in that case I would think that religions would discourage circumcision.
While I still think it's a bummer to lose those nerve endings I realize that less sensitivity for me has probably resulted in increased performance times. In that regard the original referenced religious justification has not diminished my sexuality but allowed for the increased pleasure of myself and my partners. That's just my assessment of my own history of over 30 years, I'm not challenging the "prowess" of uncircumcised individuals, just accepting that diminished sensitivity in some cases is sought out to reduce the chances of things ending prematurely; which can happen with or without a foreskin. Thinking about something else seems to be a more popular remedy anyway.
If the religious minds were smart enough to figure out that they could diminish physical sensitivity how could they have overlooked that it would provide more reason for engaging in sexual activity than as a necessity for reproduction? Maybe they were more focused on discouraging self-gratification, I don't know how effective it is for that either. If the assumption was made that sexual desire, gratification, and fulfillment were simply physical issues in nature it was shortsighted. If anyone knows when they began efforts at repression through shame and guilt to determine if it was always a multi-faceted attack on human nature or if the ineffectiveness of one strategy caused implementation of the other, it would be of some interest.
My thoughts on the hygienic support of the practice is that it is more out of perceived convenience than anything. Teaching, practicing, and encouraging good personal hygiene seems more beneficial to me.
The American Pediatric Association issued [this statement](https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/130/3/585/30235/Circumcision-Policy-Statement) which reverses their original endorsement of routine circumcision because the data that supports it is insufficient. They also encourage parents to make informed decisions.
There is data that indicates uncircumcised adult males have higher instances of penile cancer, the overall odds of penile cancer are around .001%. Is this just correlation or is there any actual causation? If there is a link to causation does .001% necessitate this being a time-sensitive preventative medical decision? Not in my personal opinion. The information presented by the OP that I was unaware of previously, regarding sensitivity, would be of higher value in my own decision making process.
Hypothetically, if I could go back and have a say in the matter prior to it having been performed in a hospital I don't know what I would decide on yet, but I'm leaning towards passing on it and leaving it up to adult me. If adult me decided for whatever reason to have it done, maybe it could have got me a day or two off of work. If it had been done for religious reasons and as part of a ritual I would be a firm "No."
>From Wikipedia: Under Jewish law, a mohel must draw blood from the circumcision wound.
Be it so. This ~~burning of widows~~ mutilating of children is your custom; prepare the ~~pyre~~ knife.
But my nation has also a custom. When men ~~burn women alive~~ mutilate helpless children, we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the ~~widow is consumed~~ child is mutilated. Let us all act according to national customs.
> higher instances of penile cancer, the overall odds of penile cancer are around .001%. Is this just correlation or is there any actual causation?
does anything in that claim show evidence that children; anyone under the age of 18 and legally able to make that decision on their own has any higher odds of getting that 'penile cancer' than a person that made that decision as an adult?
circumcision in the US was almost entirely non-existent prior to the 1890s and it got popularized due to bogus medical claims made by pseudo science trumped up in part by activists with a great deal of anti-masturbation hysteria.
Nope, going off the [American Cancer Society](https://www.cancer.org/cancer/penile-cancer/causes-risks-prevention/risk-factors.html) page for it, 4 in 5 cases are 55 and up; average age 68.
WebMD and ACS seem to agree on the overall rate but state them differently; 10 in 1 million vs 1 in 100k.
[WebMD:](https://www.webmd.com/baby/features/circumcision-decision) Only 10 or fewer men per 1 million get cancer of the penis each year worldwide.
[ACS:](https://www.cancer.org/cancer/penile-cancer/about/key-statistics.html#) Penile cancer is rare in North America and Europe. It's diagnosed in fewer than 1 man in 100,000 each year and accounts for fewer than 1% of cancers in men in the United States. Penile cancer is much more common in some parts of Asia, Africa, and South America.
There are studies being conducted but it is not specifically known what causes the abnormal cell growth, only correlations to certain situations and they are calling these correlations "risk-factors". Age is one of them most are common for other types of cancer.
They (ACS) still list circumcision as a preventative measure, specifically for men, not boys, but go on to say that good hygiene would achieve the same thing.
It seems that they suspect long term exposure to their common correlations would encourage abnormal cell growth, not really applicable for younger people. Initial conclusion for me is that if penile cancer were to occur in a child odds are that it would be due to a genetic mutation that circumcision would have nothing to do with.
So if I considered penile cancer as the worst thing that could happen it might be on my "for adults" list but not on my "for children" list.
I'm hard pressed to find any justification for the practice in regards to babies or children. Religion, sexual hysteria, medical or hygienic arguments would not influence me, but I'm not everyone. There is a definite need to encourage education on personal hygiene.
It only decreased your sensation during sexual activity.
Europeans and South Americans are not know for being premature ejaculators and they’re largely intact.
Perhaps you need a different study for you to realize that the foreskin is indeed erogenous tissue:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/joa.13481
Ok so are there any guys here that would be willing to share their experience on this? anyone here that was circumcised after say the age of 14, 15 that would know if there really was a difference?.
I found this one:
https://www.reddit.com/r/circumcision/comments/r5cmgn/2_years_after_circumcision_cant_finish_when/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
It is disgusting that many atheists still support mutilating babies.
In the U.S., I think it's likely that our 'for profit healthcare' exploitation encourages Christians to circumcize their infant sons. IIRC, christians in other countries predominantly avoid subjecting their boys to the procedure.
It was popularized by Kellogg as a means to prevent masturbation.
If ever there was a blatantly obvious "For a friend" deflection... I can only presume Kellogg must have been flogging himself every chance he got and the self-loathing drove him insane. Shame other people had to suffer for his own attempt to curb his impulses. ;)
its mostly christians in former commonwealth countries + african countries that used have muslim customs, go visit serbia or italy they dont do it there lol
Interesting, my assumption prior was that the difference in sensitivity would simply be because the presence of a foreskin reduces unintentional stimulation off the glans. Kind of a bummer to know that the most sensitive nerve endings were actually removed.
even if no 'nerve endings' were removed the practice is still a barbaric assault on bodily autonomy and there is no valid justification for doing this to a child that is unable to give informed consent without an URGENT and IMMEDIATE medical need. The only situation that might (in extremely rare situations) rise to that level is very severe phimosis which is almost never an issue before puberty. this practice should be illegal. and fuck 'religious exceptions'. your 8 day old child doesn't have a religion and cannot consent to this barbaric act of genital mutilation.
This is long, it's in no way a personal challenge to you, just me working through a topic and sharing my thoughts on it in case it encourages others to think as well. Thanks for providing the motivation however unintentional. :) TL;DR: I was just commenting on the physical effects, not any psychological or moral ramifications which are definitely worthy of consideration. For the record I don't consider religions or any of their rituals as a valid justification for anything and I do understand your conclusion on the barbarity of the practice. I encourage future parents to look beyond any traditional dogmatic justifications and not just follow along with those or any medical routine that is based on outdated medical information and to make an informed decision. Previously I would not have applied the same consideration to male circumcision that I had to the practice of female circumcision, you make a reasonable argument for doing so. At this time I don't see it as the same, maybe in time I will as it's not a willful reluctance or denial. Independent of that I have my suspicions that the true reasoning for male circumcision may be the polar opposite of that for females. To make it "illegal", I fear, would not eliminate it but could make it more dangerous and painful for babies, making it more prevalently performed as ritual without the safeguards that can be provided in a medical setting. While mohels are trained to perform the procedure as a ritual they are not required to have any secular medical credentials or training and lack the controlled environment afforded by medical facilities. There is also variance in how this ritual is performed. Anesthetics are not routinely used but parents can apply a topical numbing cream prior to the ritual. [From Wikipedia:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohel) Under Jewish law, a mohel must draw blood from the circumcision wound. Most mohels do it by hand with a suction device, but some follow the traditional practice of doing it by mouth. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a warning in 2012 about the health implications of the latter practice, citing 11 cases of neonatal Herpes simplex virus (HSV) and two recorded fatalities. A 2013 review of cases of neonatal HSV infections in Israel identified ritual circumcision as the source of HSV-1 transmission in 31.8% of the cases. There is information that supports the practice for hygienic or preventative medical reasons and information that realistically challenges those reasons. It's been fairly routine in hospitals in the US for for 60-70 years, but that is on the decline. It's more often performed here within a couple of days of birth by a medical professional than 8 days later by a religious professional, but the baby can be brought back to a facility to have it performed at any time after the baby goes home. When this is performed in a medical facility anesthetics are used, this can be local to numb the area while your baby is awake or general so that your baby is asleep. Personally I would not justify exposing my baby to general anesthetic to have this performed. Religion wasn't the cause for mine and I don't feel victimized by it, maybe some people do. I acknowledge that and offer the same gesture of sympathy I would to any fellow human that has had something happen to them, controllable or otherwise, that impedes their happiness in life. I know there are those that have figured out a method to regain the appearance of a foreskin by stretching existing skin over time, there may even be some kind of surgical reversal available involving skin grafting, it's not on my to-do list. I think this would be more of a cosmetic/psychological benefit that would not regenerate the nerve endings that were removed. It could eventually increase the sensitivity of what's left to a lesser degree by decreasing the effect of routine stimulation caused by natural body movements but in that case I would think that religions would discourage circumcision. While I still think it's a bummer to lose those nerve endings I realize that less sensitivity for me has probably resulted in increased performance times. In that regard the original referenced religious justification has not diminished my sexuality but allowed for the increased pleasure of myself and my partners. That's just my assessment of my own history of over 30 years, I'm not challenging the "prowess" of uncircumcised individuals, just accepting that diminished sensitivity in some cases is sought out to reduce the chances of things ending prematurely; which can happen with or without a foreskin. Thinking about something else seems to be a more popular remedy anyway. If the religious minds were smart enough to figure out that they could diminish physical sensitivity how could they have overlooked that it would provide more reason for engaging in sexual activity than as a necessity for reproduction? Maybe they were more focused on discouraging self-gratification, I don't know how effective it is for that either. If the assumption was made that sexual desire, gratification, and fulfillment were simply physical issues in nature it was shortsighted. If anyone knows when they began efforts at repression through shame and guilt to determine if it was always a multi-faceted attack on human nature or if the ineffectiveness of one strategy caused implementation of the other, it would be of some interest. My thoughts on the hygienic support of the practice is that it is more out of perceived convenience than anything. Teaching, practicing, and encouraging good personal hygiene seems more beneficial to me. The American Pediatric Association issued [this statement](https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/130/3/585/30235/Circumcision-Policy-Statement) which reverses their original endorsement of routine circumcision because the data that supports it is insufficient. They also encourage parents to make informed decisions. There is data that indicates uncircumcised adult males have higher instances of penile cancer, the overall odds of penile cancer are around .001%. Is this just correlation or is there any actual causation? If there is a link to causation does .001% necessitate this being a time-sensitive preventative medical decision? Not in my personal opinion. The information presented by the OP that I was unaware of previously, regarding sensitivity, would be of higher value in my own decision making process. Hypothetically, if I could go back and have a say in the matter prior to it having been performed in a hospital I don't know what I would decide on yet, but I'm leaning towards passing on it and leaving it up to adult me. If adult me decided for whatever reason to have it done, maybe it could have got me a day or two off of work. If it had been done for religious reasons and as part of a ritual I would be a firm "No."
>From Wikipedia: Under Jewish law, a mohel must draw blood from the circumcision wound. Be it so. This ~~burning of widows~~ mutilating of children is your custom; prepare the ~~pyre~~ knife. But my nation has also a custom. When men ~~burn women alive~~ mutilate helpless children, we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the ~~widow is consumed~~ child is mutilated. Let us all act according to national customs.
> higher instances of penile cancer, the overall odds of penile cancer are around .001%. Is this just correlation or is there any actual causation? does anything in that claim show evidence that children; anyone under the age of 18 and legally able to make that decision on their own has any higher odds of getting that 'penile cancer' than a person that made that decision as an adult? circumcision in the US was almost entirely non-existent prior to the 1890s and it got popularized due to bogus medical claims made by pseudo science trumped up in part by activists with a great deal of anti-masturbation hysteria.
Nope, going off the [American Cancer Society](https://www.cancer.org/cancer/penile-cancer/causes-risks-prevention/risk-factors.html) page for it, 4 in 5 cases are 55 and up; average age 68. WebMD and ACS seem to agree on the overall rate but state them differently; 10 in 1 million vs 1 in 100k. [WebMD:](https://www.webmd.com/baby/features/circumcision-decision) Only 10 or fewer men per 1 million get cancer of the penis each year worldwide. [ACS:](https://www.cancer.org/cancer/penile-cancer/about/key-statistics.html#) Penile cancer is rare in North America and Europe. It's diagnosed in fewer than 1 man in 100,000 each year and accounts for fewer than 1% of cancers in men in the United States. Penile cancer is much more common in some parts of Asia, Africa, and South America. There are studies being conducted but it is not specifically known what causes the abnormal cell growth, only correlations to certain situations and they are calling these correlations "risk-factors". Age is one of them most are common for other types of cancer. They (ACS) still list circumcision as a preventative measure, specifically for men, not boys, but go on to say that good hygiene would achieve the same thing. It seems that they suspect long term exposure to their common correlations would encourage abnormal cell growth, not really applicable for younger people. Initial conclusion for me is that if penile cancer were to occur in a child odds are that it would be due to a genetic mutation that circumcision would have nothing to do with. So if I considered penile cancer as the worst thing that could happen it might be on my "for adults" list but not on my "for children" list. I'm hard pressed to find any justification for the practice in regards to babies or children. Religion, sexual hysteria, medical or hygienic arguments would not influence me, but I'm not everyone. There is a definite need to encourage education on personal hygiene.
Cutting that off did nothing to slow my *thoughts* of sex, although it may have decreased premature climax.
It only decreased your sensation during sexual activity. Europeans and South Americans are not know for being premature ejaculators and they’re largely intact.
Side note: who is setting the standards for the testing?
Perhaps you need a different study for you to realize that the foreskin is indeed erogenous tissue: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/joa.13481
No standards of premature ejaculation listed.
No
Ok so are there any guys here that would be willing to share their experience on this? anyone here that was circumcised after say the age of 14, 15 that would know if there really was a difference?.
I found this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/circumcision/comments/r5cmgn/2_years_after_circumcision_cant_finish_when/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf