San Francisco Circumcision Ban

Banjo said:
Nah, the parents can do whatever they want to do with their kids. Let them chop off their toes for the fun of it. We all have the rights to mutilate our children's bodies to honour our ideologies.
Click to expand...

Toes are functional and they help for better balance and control. The foreskin? It just hangs there and does nothing.

*snip*
*snip*

Done.

:lol:
 
Not for those of you who are emberassed to talk about sex:

Effects of male circumcision on female arousal and orgasm

While vaginal dryness is considered an indicator for female sexual arousal disorder,1,2 male circumcision may exacerbate female vaginal dryness during intercourse.3 O’Hara and O’Hara reported that women who had experienced coitus with both intact and circumcised men preferred intact partners by a ratio of 8.6 to one.4 Most women (85.5%) in that survey reported that they were more likely to experience orgasm with a genitally intact partner: ‘They [surveyed women] were also more likely to report that vaginal secretions lessened as coitus progressed with their circumcised partners (16.75, 6.88–40.77).’4
Click to expand...

Just a piece of skin that no one cares about?
 
posts from hell said:
not THAT important. But if a parent wanted to chop it off, would you have any issues? It's the parents rights after all, just like you said.

van Gogh was fine after all, just a thing to think about.
Click to expand...

Does the chopping off the ear has a medical benefit? Apparently it does not. But with the foreskin, certainly. It's been shown to have medical benefits (short and long term) when the foreskin is removed.
 
kokonut said:
Does the chopping off the ear has a medical benefit? Apparently it does not. But with the foreskin, certainly. It's been shown to have medical benefits (short and long term) when the foreskin is removed.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that you stay fit as you have to work your ass off to keep the vagina of your spouse wet.
 
kokonut said:
Does the chopping off the ear has a medical benefit? Apparently it does not. But with the foreskin, certainly. It's been shown to have medical benefits (short and long term) when the foreskin is removed.
Click to expand...

If the medical benefits were actually significant and outweighed the medical risks, why does no major medical organization advocate for routine circumcision? Why is no major medical organization opposing this ban as bad medicine? Why are more and more doctors and hospitals refusing to perform routine infant circumcision?
 
Aleser said:
If the medical benefits were actually significant and outweighed the medical risks, why does no major medical organization advocate for routine circumcision? Why is no major medical organization opposing this ban as bad medicine? Why are more and more doctors and hospitals refusing to perform routine infant circumcision?
Click to expand...

Might want to ask WHO that question.

WHO | World Health Organization
 
kokonut said:
Might want to ask WHO that question.

WHO | World Health Organization
Click to expand...


"male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.

Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes:
- the provision of HIV testing and counseling services;
- treatment for sexually transmitted infections;
- the promotion of safer sex practices;
- the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use."

... in lack of living in a mud hut in africa, it's safe to say that the -much more effective- methods of preventing HIV (condom use, regular std testing of partners, post-exposure prophylaxis) can do just fine.

Circumcised men can and do get HIV- and there's just as many studies which dispute the HIV benefit in circumcision as those which support it. Given that condoms are virtually always effective in preventing HIV, it is clear that the WHO's recommendations are aimed at countries with low rates of condom use or social acceptance and high rates of HIV: aka, mudhut countries in Africa. Places where -some- reduction in the risk of HIV is still harm reduction because HIV is so widespread. This is NOT the case in the US, and WHO policy should not be taken as US policy.

The WHO policy also allows for re-stitching female genital mutilation as long as it is not to a degree that would impede future sexual function, when one attends a childbirth where it needs to be open, because the WHO understands that women in such countries might not have a medical attendant at their birth if they fear their genitals will not be "returned to normal" after the birth. Likewise, the guidelines allow for women to ask to not have their FGM fully reversed, and the provider is not allowed to do a complete reversal even though we understand FGM is wrong and dangerous.

Does that mean they sanction female genital mutilation? Of course not. But they operate as best they can within the standards of where they are.

Playing in the sandbox you're in does not = recommending routine infant circumcision in developed countries with access to condoms, healthcare, post-exposure prophylaxis, etc.
 
I have two boys, now both are grown up. Anyway first one was circumcision and second did not because he was hospitalized for first week of his life due to flu which he got it from me after he was born. His doctor told me not to do circumcision till he turns 1. By the time he turned 1 I could not do it because he was too old for it but it was pain in the a@# to clean his foreskin and hated to touch his private part till he is old enough to take care of it himself. Then he had problem with it while he grow up so he asked to be circumcision at 16. Honestly, I would ask my husband to have it remove if he is not circumcision and to protect myself from cervic cancer. None of my sisters had cervic cancer but my mother did because my dad was not circumcision. It is should be parents decision not the voters. What is next? tell us how to raise our children? None of anyone business what parents decide what to do with it.
 
jazzy said:
it but it was pain in the a@# to clean his foreskin and hated to touch his private part till he is old enough to take care of it himself.
Click to expand...

Er... you're not supposed to do anything special to take care of an infant or child's foreskin. You're supposed to wash the entire penis like you would wash a finger.

If you were retracting (pulling back) his foreskin, not only were you hurting him, but you were also probably creating the problems he had with his foreskin later in life.

A boy should be the first person to retract his own foreskin, and it should only be done when the foreskin would naturally be separate from the glans, at about 10 years old. Until then there is never a reason to pull back the foreskin and it is both painful and harmful to the child.
 
Aleser said:
Until then there is never a reason to pull back the foreskin and it is both painful and harmful to the child.
Click to expand...

Not true. My son developed a minor yeast infection as a baby (that was the first time I learned men can get yeast infections too) and the pediatrician showed me how to very gently pull back the foreskin to expose the tip of the penis in the bathwater. My baby never gave a sign of discomfort or pain. It's if you pull the foreskin back too far that it's painful and damaging.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Not true. My son developed a minor yeast infection as a baby (that was the first time I learned men can get yeast infections too) and the pediatrician showed me how to very gently pull back the foreskin to expose the tip of the penis in the bathwater. My baby never gave a sign of discomfort or pain. It's if you pull the foreskin back too far that it's painful and damaging.
Click to expand...

as long as you're not pulling back far enough to forcibly separate the foreskin from the glans, I don't see a reason to believe you'd be harming the kid.

That said, many parents and unfortunately many pediatricians in the US mistakenly believe that the foreskin should be completely and forcibly retracted to clean it/underneath it which is both painful and damaging. Unless there's a special medical condition, as in your son's case, there's no reason to attempt any level of retracting the foreskin, and many reasons why not to.
 
posts from hell said:
Just curious.. The outer part of an ear is not really needed. Would you guys support parents deciding to cut them off for religious beliefs at an age where the child couldnt decide for himself?
Click to expand...
The outer ear does perform functions.

What religious beliefs require cutting off children's ears?
 
Banjo said:
Nah, the parents can do whatever they want to do with their kids. Let them chop off their toes for the fun of it. We all have the rights to mutilate our children's bodies to honour our ideologies.
Click to expand...
Are parents having their sons circumcised "for the fun of it"? Where did you read that?

Has there been some kind of general uproar of circumcised males charging that their parents mutilated them to honor their ideologies? If not, then why do you say that?
 
deafskeptic said:
OK I stand corrected. I've looked back at banjo's post and I see that you're right.
Click to expand...
"Yes, it's estimated that 10% to 20% of Canadians born these days are left intact."

That means, the other 90% to 80% of Canadians (I assume just the males) are circumcised.
 
We had a lot of guests over this weekend, as usual. (My house is apparently a party house :lol: )

Anyway, we were discussing this very subject. Only one of all of us here have any sons. He was telling us 2 things:

1) that when his son was born he (and his wife) were asked if they wanted their son circumcised. Their answer was a resounding YES. I'll elaborate in #2 below, but the main point of this #1 here was that he was asked, whereas many years ago most parents weren't asked, it was just done. He was noting that times have changed in which the parents are now asked first.

2) The reason for the resounding YES was that this dad, the one who chose to have his son circumcised, is that he has an older brother who has 3 sons. His first 2 sons were circumcised without being asked. When the youngest son was born, his brother was finally asked, and he and his wife said no. When the youngest son was 7, he was starting to cry in that he "looked different" from his brothers. He asked to be made to look the same. While I'm not sure I agree with all the parents' reasoning at this specific age, they had him circumcised at 7. It's a subject they still all talk about today. Because? Sam clearly remembers the circumcision at 7, and how painful it was. He's glad it was done, so he felt "normal" compared to his brothers. So ... our friend, remembering all this (because this is his nephew), said "YES!" when asked if they wanted their day-old son to be circumcised. So it was "done and over with".

Just his take on it. Thought I'd offer a perspective :)
 
AlleyCat said:
When the youngest son was 7, he was starting to cry in that he "looked different" from his brothers. He asked to be made to look the same.
Click to expand...

Huh! I had a chat with my sons about this too. One is circumcised, the other is not. Asked them how they felt about it and they replied they never gave it much thought. They're happy as they are so I'm glad we didn't presume on the second son's behalf that he would want one.
 
deafskeptic said:
So you're saying that 80% to 90% of Canadians baby boys are circumcisioned? That's a lot to me.
Click to expand...

Sorry, my mistake. A Freudian slip right there, I meant the opposite. It should had been, Yes, it's estimated that 10% to 20% of Canadians born these days are not left intact. Thank you for pointing it out. Sorry for the confusion.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Huh! I had a chat with my sons about this too. One is circumcised, the other is not. Asked them how they felt about it and they replied they never gave it much thought. They're happy as they are so I'm glad we didn't presume on the second son's behalf that he would want one.
Click to expand...

Cool! How old are your sons? Just curious! :)
 
Back
Top