San Francisco Wants To Criminalize Infant Circumcision

[Nordling]

The frenulum under the head of the penis is often abnormally short or thick or tight, and an adult male has to have it cut, via a frenectomy, which frees the foreskin somewhat, and, changes the angle of an erect penis.

Teehee, I had a frenectomy when I was like 11. That's also what it's called when you get the frenulum that connects your upper gums to your lip cut out. I still have great sensation. :lol:

Ha! I had that procedure done when I was about five years old. The surgeon? My older sister via elbow to the mouth. lol She was a meanie back then.

 

[luvsyou]

The gov't has bigger problems than taking on circumcision. They have a $300 million budget deficit that is expected to triple in 5 years according to their mayor. I hate how governments can't focus on the real problems.

 

[AlexLady]

The gov't has bigger problems than taking on circumcision. They have a $300 million budget deficit that is expected to triple in 5 years according to their mayor. I hate how governments can't focus on the real problems.

It's the people who can't focus on the real problems. They'd rather have drama.

 

[Jupiter551]

It's the people who can't focus on the real problems. They'd rather have drama.

Perhaps, but it's the government who uses stuff like this to distract from the bigger issues, and the media that enables it. That "the people" react to it as expected is merely the logical result.

 

[Bocefish]

Anybody know if this got shot down or not? I assume it did not sure.

 

[Just Me]

"It obtained a sufficient number of signatures but was thrown off the ballot by Superior Court Judge Loretta Giorgi, who ruled that as "a widely practiced medical procedure", circumcision cannot be banned by San Francisco since California law forbids municipalities from regulating procedures allowed by the state."

http://stopcircban.com/2011/08/circumcision-ban-debate-blurs-proven-health-benefits/

 

[Bocefish]

Thanks for the info.

These “intactivists” ignore the overwhelming evidence and the multiple health benefits of circumcision from infancy through old age, including a 60% protection against the heterosexual transmission of HIV/AIDS.

InTACTivists :lol:

 

[LadyLuna]

1. I don't see any strong evidence for or against circumcision

2. I would say it is something parents should be allowed to do if they want. This is supposed to be a free country.

3. I have had two dicks, the first was uncut the other was cut. Honestly, how the sex felt depended far more on how I felt about the guy at the time I was doing him (both fuckbuddy relationships lasted 2 or more years, and my feelings about the gentlemen kept changing)

4. Why yes, I do swoon to most of Paulie's posts.

5. As the child of not-so religious parents, one of the most embarassing things I ever heard was at 13- "It's okay to wash your vagina. It needs to get clean too."

6. I had to give the guy with the intact dick the "cleaner dick" award... as in, more consistently clean. Note to the guys- just because it's cut doesn't mean you don't have to wash it!

 

[Jupiter551]

I might be missing he point about all the "nerve endings in the foreskin" but like...when it's erect the foreskin is rolled back so what's the difference? It's not like those nerve endings are affecting the glans which is obviously the most sensitive part. Likewise with sensitivity, if that's from the foreskin protecting then logically we could achieve the same effect by wrapping a bandaid around the end of the dick?

I dunno, I can't comment on what I've never had (foreskin), but I enjoy sex and wouldn't want to be ultra-sensitive down there, would seem like you'd have trouble not cumming prematurely.

In another thread some doctor was also quoted as saying the foreskin helps lubricate the glans....um, eww? With what? future smegma? I think I'm okay without viscous fluid fermenting under there thanks.

 

[Nordling]

I might be missing he point about all the "nerve endings in the foreskin" but like...when it's erect the foreskin is rolled back so what's the difference? It's not like those nerve endings are affecting the glans which is obviously the most sensitive part. Likewise with sensitivity, if that's from the foreskin protecting then logically we could achieve the same effect by wrapping a bandaid around the end of the dick?

I dunno, I can't comment on what I've never had (foreskin), but I enjoy sex and wouldn't want to be ultra-sensitive down there, would seem like you'd have trouble not cumming prematurely.

In another thread some doctor was also quoted as saying the foreskin helps lubricate the glans....um, eww? With what? future smegma? I think I'm okay without viscous fluid fermenting under there thanks.

:lol: Not "future smegma," smegma. If left on it's own, yes, it becomes icky. Just like if you spent an hour handling pork and never washed your hands. With normal hygiene, you'd never even notice it.

Not sure what you mean by a bandaid. I don't think leaving a bandaid in place all your life would be healthy.

The question is, is it mutilation? I say yes, many say no. But if it is, no, one as a parent should not have the right to mutilate their child...any more than a parent has the right to perform the much more drastic, but related procedure done on females in some parts of the world.

Personally, I think each individual should have the right to decide for themselves when they reach the age of majority. I've known two guys who had it done and though they were sore for a few days, it wasn't that big a deal. (what THEY told me)

Among non-Semites, the procedure became popular in the US because some nut job suggested it would prevent kids from fapping. We know that's not true, eh?

 

[Shaun__]

2. I would say it is something parents should be allowed to do if they want. This is supposed to be a free country.

That is so wrong. Parents and doctors have no right to cut various things off of a child's body just because he is to young to say stop. It should have been my choice when I was an adult, not someone else right after after I was born.

 

[Jupiter551]

Parents have to make thousands upon thousands of decisions that affect their kids, everything from which school to send them to, to which books to read them, that's part of raising a child. Making decisions that, for better or worse, are the best the parent can do at the time. I don't see how circumcision is any different.

If you think to cut or not to cut is a potentially life-changing decision, how about the decision by many parents, with NO qualifications, to decide to home-school their kids. That's protected under American law if I remember correctly. I think it's a far more heinous thing to have a child grow up with a crappy or barely existent education, and potentially get their ideas about the world from their kooky parent, than whether they have some skin cut off their penis as a baby.

Maybe the intactivists are right and us cut guys are missing out, but hell, most of us seem to be coping okay with it.

 

[Shaun__]

Parents have to make thousands upon thousands of decisions that affect their kids, everything from which school to send them to, to which books to read them, that's part of raising a child. Making decisions that, for better or worse, are the best the parent can do at the time. I don't see how circumcision is any different.

If you think to cut or not to cut is a potentially life-changing decision, how about the decision by many parents, with NO qualifications, to decide to home-school their kids. That's protected under American law if I remember correctly. I think it's a far more heinous thing to have a child grow up with a crappy or barely existent education, and potentially get their ideas about the world from their kooky parent, than whether they have some skin cut off their penis as a baby.

Maybe the intactivists are right and us cut guys are missing out, but hell, most of us seem to be coping okay with it.

I bet you do not say the same thing about female circumcision. Both are barbaric and should be stopped.

I also feel sorry for some of the home schooled kids, and think the way some of them are not socialized at all is a form of child abuse.

 

[bud9752]

I have to disagree with you Shaun ,it's like comparing apples and oranges, if you do a search on Female Circumcision, you will find that it is not the same as male circumcision, ie..... Female circumcision is the removal of the clitoris totally (for all respective arguments) while Male circumcision is the removal of the foreskin and not the total removal of the penis (emasculation) , while it is a "personal" choice of the parents to circumcise their male children whether it be for religious reasons or not , female circumcision while mostly practiced in African countries is indeed a barbaric mutilation of a child's body and should be stopped.

 

[Nordling]

I have to disagree with you Shaun ,it's like comparing apples and oranges, if you do a search on Female Circumcision, you will find that it is not the same as male circumcision, ie..... Female circumcision is the removal of the clitoris totally (for all respective arguments) while Male circumcision is the removal of the foreskin and not the total removal of the penis (emasculation) , while it is a "personal" choice of the parents to circumcise their male children whether it be for religious reasons or not , female circumcision while mostly practiced in African countries is indeed a barbaric mutilation of a child's body and should be stopped.

Only partly true. FGM is variable depending on the particular culture--it ranges from excision of the inner labia to clitorectomy. All of it is horrid. Yes, it's not "the same." Few things are, but here, it's a matter of degree. Still, both are forms of child mutilation.

I have to ask, where would people draw the line? Installing a Prince Albert on a baby?

 

[Shaun__]

I have to disagree with you Shaun ,it's like comparing apples and oranges, if you do a search on Female Circumcision, you will find that it is not the same as male circumcision, ie..... Female circumcision is the removal of the clitoris totally (for all respective arguments) while Male circumcision is the removal of the foreskin and not the total removal of the penis (emasculation) , while it is a "personal" choice of the parents to circumcise their male children whether it be for religious reasons or not , female circumcision while mostly practiced in African countries is indeed a barbaric mutilation of a child's body and should be stopped.

You are incorrect female circumcision ranges from a pinprick in a medical setting to draw one drop of blood to burning off of all external genitals with camp fire heated tools. It is also practiced many places in Asia as well.

According to your argument the people who leave the clitoris are not doing anything that wrong then? Or do they also need to leave the labia minora as well? Genital mutilation is genital mutilation. No amount on a male or female is appropriate, and bullshit societal norms be damned it is time it all ended.

Also in case my point was unclear, circumcision is barbaric.

A two-week old boy died at a Brooklyn hospital in September after contracting herpes through a religious circumcision ritual that ignited controversy in 2005 after another infant died, the Daily News has learned.

The unidentified infant died Sept. 28, 2011, at Maimonides Hospital, according to a spokeswoman for the city Medical Examiner, who confirmed the death after a News inquiry.

The cause of death was listed as “disseminated herpes simplex virus Type 1, complicating ritual circumcision with oral suction.”

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/inf ... z1oZWUpemX

 

[SoTxBob]

As a survivor of circumcision, I don't recall the trauma of the ordeal. Perhaps I blocked it out?

Yeah no one remembers it do they?

Babies are very resilient. I watched this happen to my son, and I cried longer than he did. They also use a topical numbing agent to ease the process.

I am all for other people voicing their opinions but when you are a parent, it is really scary to think that any kind of government can tell you what is right for them.

And isn't it curious that in the vast majority of instances like this, its the women that are the loudest and have the strongest opinions about what to do with a cock? :mrgreen: Like with Govt.. its nunyadamnbidness what I and my family decide to do with medically safe practices.

Let me toss you this bone to chew on.. [no pun intended ]
.....the difference between the mostly African practice of female labia removal by tribe or clan elder women and the ever so new and 'chic' thing of designer vagina's and labia reductions.
aside from the non medical arena of the former, the result is essentially the same from what I have seen.
I say if you want to legislate foreskins, then they should also legislate boob and labial modifications as well....
Oh..... might as well add body piercing and subdermals to the list ...

Or hey.... why not allow freedom of choice and have the govt get out of peoples business and stick to more important things ?


... And Yes, I also supported Dr. K's efforts for the right to die ....

 

[Nordling]

Good points...but...

Why not let individuals make the decision on what is done TO them? Government, I agree, should have no say on what adults do their bodies. (legalize weed!) lol But when people decide to whack off part of their kids' body parts, generally under the auspices of peer pressure, I have to give a thumbs down.

Having said that, I'm against the SF attempt to make it illegal. I know that sounds like arguing against myself, but the fact is, in the US, the procedure is still too ingrained in our society that such a law would cause more problems than it would solve. For now, more discussion and education is a better route.

 

[Shaun__]

Good points...but...

Why not let individuals make the decision on what is done TO them? Government, I agree, should have no say on what adults do their bodies. (legalize weed!) lol But when people decide to whack off part of their kids' body parts, generally under the auspices of peer pressure, I have to give a thumbs down.

Having said that, I'm against the SF attempt to make it illegal. I know that sounds like arguing against myself, but the fact is, in the US, the procedure is still too ingrained in our society that such a law would cause more problems than it would solve. For now, more discussion and education is a better route.

Making things like this illegal will drive them underground and further put the child's health at risk. Discussion and education is the best way to end it.

 

[Jupiter551]

Well this is such a necro'd thread but there's fairly widespread medical evidence that circumcision reduces vulnerability to catching or carrying STDs. Whether you want to argue that only applies to third world countries or not, the CDC and WHO consider it a vital health consideration up there with clean water and vaccination. :dontknow:

 

[Shaun__]

Well this is such a necro'd thread but there's fairly widespread medical evidence that circumcision reduces vulnerability to catching or carrying STDs. Whether you want to argue that only applies to third world countries or not, the CDC and WHO consider it a vital health consideration up there with clean water and vaccination. :dontknow:

Funny that it helps those people, but has minimal effect in Australia and New Zealand.

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 34:2, pp160-4

Circumcision in Australia: further evidence on its effects on sexual health and wellbeing

Jason A. Ferris, Juliet Richters, Marian K. Pitts, Julia M. Shelley, Judy M. Simpson. Richard Ryall and Anthony M. A. Smith

ABSTRACT

Objective: To report on the prevalence and demographic variation in circumcision in Australia and examine sexual health outcomes in comparison with earlier research.

Methods: A representative household sample of 4,290 Australian men aged 16–64 years completed a computer-assisted telephone interview including questions on circumcision status, demographic variables, reported lifetime experience of selected sexually transmissible infections (STIs), experience of sexual difficulties in the previous 12 months, masturbation, and sexual practices at last heterosexual encounter.

Results: More than half the men (58%) were circumcised. Circumcision was less common (33%) among men under 30 and more common (66%) among those born in Australia. After adjustment for age and number of partners, circumcision was unrelated to STI history except for non-specific urethritis (higher among circumcised men, OR=2.11, p<0.001 [i.e. the risk is more than twice as great, with high significance.]) and penile candidiasis (lower among circumcised men, OR=0.49, p<0.001).

Circumcision was unrelated to any of the sexual difficulties we asked about (after adjusting for age) except that circumcised men were somewhat less likely to have worried during sex about whether their bodies looked unattractive (OR=0.77, p=0.04). [This has been called "sociosomatic". They are victims of prejudice.] No association between lack of circumcision [curious expression!] and erection difficulties was detected. [Did they look for a correlation between circumcision and erectile difficulties?] After correction for age, circumcised men were somewhat more likely to have masturbated alone in the previous 12 months (OR=1.20, p=0.02).

Conclusions: Circumcision appears to have minimal protective effects on sexual health in Australia.

 

[Jupiter551]

Well this is such a necro'd thread but there's fairly widespread medical evidence that circumcision reduces vulnerability to catching or carrying STDs. Whether you want to argue that only applies to third world countries or not, the CDC and WHO consider it a vital health consideration up there with clean water and vaccination. :dontknow:

Funny that it helps those people, but has minimal effect in Australia and New Zealand.

Funny? more like indicative that STDs and unprotected sex are far more rampant in places like Africa than in developed countries...

 

[Shaun__]

Well this is such a necro'd thread but there's fairly widespread medical evidence that circumcision reduces vulnerability to catching or carrying STDs. Whether you want to argue that only applies to third world countries or not, the CDC and WHO consider it a vital health consideration up there with clean water and vaccination. :dontknow:

Funny that it helps those people, but has minimal effect in Australia and New Zealand.

Funny? more like indicative that STDs and unprotected sex are far more rampant in places like Africa than in developed countries...

Or an extra flap of skin has no real bearing on sexual health, and people use flawed studies to try to justify the status quo of child penis tip cutting. Probably the same kind of people who tell villagers in Africa that condoms do not help protect against stds.

 

[Jupiter551]

A two-week old boy died at a Brooklyn hospital in September after contracting herpes through a religious circumcision ritual that ignited controversy in 2005 after another infant died, the Daily News has learned.

The unidentified infant died Sept. 28, 2011, at Maimonides Hospital, according to a spokeswoman for the city Medical Examiner, who confirmed the death after a News inquiry.

The cause of death was listed as “disseminated herpes simplex virus Type 1, complicating ritual circumcision with oral suction.”

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/inf ... z1oZWUpemX

err, oral suction? The baby died (tragically) from herpes, not from circumcision. Most circumcisions are conducted in hospitals, without oral suction of the baby's penis. Comparing this horrible situation to regular circumcision is no different than saying some woman died from blood-poisoning after a back-alley unlicensed boob-job therefore all boob jobs are barbaric and should be illegal. (Actually that last bit isn't a bad idea...but something tells me San Francisco is more concerned with penises than boobs)

 

[Jupiter551]

Or an extra flap of skin has no real bearing on sexual health, and people use flawed studies to try to justify the status quo of child penis tip cutting. Probably the same kind of people who tell villagers in Africa that condoms do not help protect against stds.

It has a bearing when running water is scarce, safe-sex is virtually non-existent, and it's easier for "stuff" to get under that flap.

From the CDC, which by the way is the government department Centre for Disease Control - you know, the guys who actually study this stuff for a living.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

Compared with the dry external skin surface, the inner mucosa of the foreskin has less keratinization (deposition of fibrous protein), a higher density of target cells for HIV infection (Langerhans cells), and is more susceptible to HIV infection than other penile tissue in laboratory studies [2]. The foreskin may also have greater susceptibility to traumatic epithelial disruptions (tears) during intercourse, providing a portal of entry for pathogens, including HIV [3]. In addition, the microenvironment in the preputial sac between the unretracted foreskin and the glans penis may be conducive to viral survival [1]. Finally, the higher rates of sexually transmitted genital ulcerative disease, such as syphilis, observed in uncircumcised men may also increase susceptibility to HIV infection [4].

International Observational Studies

A systematic review and meta-analysis that focused on male circumcision and heterosexual transmission of HIV in Africa was published in 2000 [5]. It included 19 cross-sectional studies, 5 case-control studies, 3 cohort studies, and 1 partner study. A substantial protective effect of male circumcision on risk for HIV infection was noted, along with a reduced risk for genital ulcer disease. After adjustment for confounding factors in the population-based studies, the relative risk for HIV infection was 44% lower in circumcised men. The strongest association was seen in men at high risk, such as patients at sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics, for whom the adjusted relative risk was 71% lower for circumcised men.

Another review that included stringent assessment of 10 potential confounding factors and was stratified by study type or study population was published in 2003 [6]. Most of the studies were from Africa. Of the 35 observational studies in the review, the 16 in the general population had inconsistent results. The one large prospective cohort study in this group showed a significant protective effect: the odds of infection were 42% lower for circumcised men [7]. The remaining 19 studies were conducted in populations at high risk. These studies found a consistent, substantial protective effect, which increased with adjustment for confounding. Four of these were cohort studies: all demonstrated a protective effect, with two being statistically significant.

 

[Shaun__]

From the CDC, which by the way is the government department Centre for Disease Control - you know, the guys who actually study this stuff for a living.

Of the 35 observational studies in the review, the 16 in the general population had inconsistent results. So once again in normal everyday life it had minimal effect on sexual health according to the CDC. Seems like places with running water could consider it safe to stop mutilating the genitals of babies then.

 

[Jupiter551]

From the CDC, which by the way is the government department Centre for Disease Control - you know, the guys who actually study this stuff for a living.

Of the 35 observational studies in the review, the 16 in the general population had inconsistent results. So once again in normal everyday life it had minimal effect on sexual health according to the CDC. Seems like places with running water could consider it safe to stop mutilating the genitals of babies then.

Ok man, well if that's what you got out of it I suggest re-reading it, because they listed numerous empirically proven reasons why lack of circumcision is conducive to the contraction and spread of STIs, it's not all about washing. The underside of the foreskin is porous, and can act as an infection vector, which you'd have noted if you'd read the above quote, along with a high concentration of cells targeted by HIV.

They stated that some of the studies were inconsistent, however the majority were highly consistent that circumcision dramatically lowered the risk of STIs. This sounds pretty conclusive to me:

A substantial protective effect of male circumcision on risk for HIV infection was noted, along with a reduced risk for genital ulcer disease. After adjustment for confounding factors in the population-based studies, the relative risk for HIV infection was 44% lower in circumcised men. The strongest association was seen in men at high risk, such as patients at sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics, for whom the adjusted relative risk was 71% lower for circumcised men.

Apart from those inconclusive (note this doesn't mean these studies showed no difference between cut and uncut) the majority were described in rather strong terms:

The one large prospective cohort study in this group showed a significant protective effect: the odds of infection were 42% lower for circumcised men [7]. The remaining 19 studies were conducted in populations at high risk. These studies found a consistent, substantial protective effect, which increased with adjustment for confounding. Four of these were cohort studies: all demonstrated a protective effect, with two being statistically significant.

BTW, calling it mutilating a baby's genitals is pretty offensive. I take it you're not circumsized? I am, and I take offense that my parents would condone mutilation of me as a baby. I'm happy with my penis :twocents-02cents:

 

[SweepTheLeg]

I would like it to be illegal to cut the umbilical cord because the baby never gave it's consent along with I could afford paying for two by only feeding one so not only does it appease the freedom and liberty and choice of 'mericans but it is also very economical too.

 

[Shaun__]

From the CDC, which by the way is the government department Centre for Disease Control - you know, the guys who actually study this stuff for a living.

Of the 35 observational studies in the review, the 16 in the general population had inconsistent results. So once again in normal everyday life it had minimal effect on sexual health according to the CDC. Seems like places with running water could consider it safe to stop mutilating the genitals of babies then.

Ok man, well if that's what you got out of it I suggest re-reading it, because they listed numerous empirically proven reasons why lack of circumcision is conducive to the contraction and spread of STIs, it's not all about washing. The underside of the foreskin is porous, and can act as an infection vector, which you'd have noted if you'd read the above quote, along with a high concentration of cells targeted by HIV.

They stated that some of the studies were inconsistent, however the majority were highly consistent that circumcision dramatically lowered the risk of STIs. This sounds pretty conclusive to me:

A substantial protective effect of male circumcision on risk for HIV infection was noted, along with a reduced risk for genital ulcer disease. After adjustment for confounding factors in the population-based studies, the relative risk for HIV infection was 44% lower in circumcised men. The strongest association was seen in men at high risk, such as patients at sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics, for whom the adjusted relative risk was 71% lower for circumcised men.

Apart from those inconclusive (note this doesn't mean these studies showed no difference between cut and uncut) the majority were described in rather strong terms:

The one large prospective cohort study in this group showed a significant protective effect: the odds of infection were 42% lower for circumcised men [7]. The remaining 19 studies were conducted in populations at high risk. These studies found a consistent, substantial protective effect, which increased with adjustment for confounding. Four of these were cohort studies: all demonstrated a protective effect, with two being statistically significant.

BTW, calling it mutilating a baby's genitals is pretty offensive. I take it you're not circumsized? I am, and I take offense that my parents would condone mutilation of me as a baby. I'm happy with my penis :twocents-02cents:

I was circumcised at birth, and I am fine with how it looks. Also since I am American most women expect me to be to cut. However there is no medical reason to be doing this, and unless your parents are Jewish there is no religious reason to do this. Male circumcision is just something people do because they were taught it is the correct thing to do.

In the parts of the world that practice female circumcision they think it is normal and object strongly to people trying to change things also. Society advances because people like me stand up and say things like this are bullshit. The 19 studies you are waving in my face are all on high risk people. The first study I showed you and the other 16 I showed you are all on the general population. The sheer number of people who received no benefit at all is way larger than the tiny little pocket that does. If you want to reduce std transmission encourage condom use among high risk groups.

 

[Rose]

If the parents decide to snip then that's their decision. Reading your arguments are making me roll my eyes like a teenager. Since the dawn of time it's been the PARENTS' choice to do things like this. This just seems like a petty thing to get your balls twisted about. If you're happy with your dick then stop bitching about it. If you feel this is mutilation then don't get your son circumcised. Problem solved. No need to try and bully others into feeling bad about their penises because of their parents' choice.