[Godstud]

So you're saying you don't oppose FGM outright?

That is not what he said. Why do you have to go all mealy-mouthed and try to change what people say? Obviously, as in most things, there are degrees. Also, you should have noticed the "IF", at the beginning of his sentence.

What Drlee said was completely rational and he even ended it with, "I am not particularly concerned with these procedures nor am I up to date on them. ".

Is English your second language?

FGM is horrible. It should be halted.
Circumcision is needless, but there's a medical argument for it, and it's not MGM unless you really are being melodramatic.

I thought I would clarify before you started to attack me for mythically supporting FGM.

[Igor Antunov]

I found a map for male circumcision, is there one for female? I imagine the map would be very similar (if it includes piercings which is common in the US)



Seems to me like a barbarous religious practice that spilled over.

[Drlee]

Circumcision and autism?

What a fucking joke. Get a grip.

[AFAIK]

Thanks for clarifying, DrLee.

[Godstud]

Circumcision and autism?

Wrong head!

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Such vitriol from Drlee and Godstud regarding this issue leads me to believe that circumcision must create some kind of complex.

[Godstud]

Vitriol? Laughing at the idiocy of stupid claims? You're funny!!!

How does your your little head have anything to do with your big head? Cmon, Brain surgeon. Please tell me! How does getting a small piece of flesh cut off the end of your penis, affect your brain chemistry?

Are you going to tell me next that if you lose a finger, your brain stops working, because it's about that dumb!

[Drlee]

We have solid evidence that this practice has been done since 2400 BC. It is probably much older than that.

But I see that our resident brain trust has decided to go to personal attack. Typical for them. I understand how angry someone can get when they are getting trounced in an argument.

I suspect they secretly favor FGM because they are loathe to discuss it and keep turning this discussion to the insignificant (at the very worst) practice in men.

By the way. I have no problem if an uncircumcised man chooses not to be circumcised as an adult. It is simply a choice. If they practice good hygiene and their partners are fine with it what difference does it make?

Regarding sensitivity. The tests results are often used to mislead. To put it succinctly, one can't test the sensitivity of about 40cm of skin that is not there. So the tests showing that there is no loss of sensitivity only measure it in areas possessed by circumcised and uncircumcised men alike. That said...

Sex is a complex combination of physical and psychological factors. It is not only fairly unique to the individual but also to the situation. Men often say that there is no bad sex. But the same men certainly admit that there is really good sex on occasion. So we are probably not going to get any definitive answer to this. For all intent and purpose this angle of the argument is irrelevant.

Are men to care what women like in this argument? The polling is pretty clear in this regard. Personal choice is, of course, the only answer. Does that argue against infant circumcision? That is a different question. One thing is certain. Several studies show that there is no statistically significant difference in erectile function between men who are circumcised and those who are not.

Circumcised men had higher average EF scores compared to their uncircumcised counterparts, (p < 0.001). The prevalence of erectile dysfunction was lower in circumcised men (56%) compared to uncircumcised men (68%) (p < 0.05). EF scores were similar in those circumcised in childhood and those who had the procedure in adulthood, (p = 0.59). The groups did not differ significantly in terms of age, relationship status, smoking, alcohol and medication use. A statistically significant difference was observed in education levels, with the circumcision group having higher levels of education (p < 0.005).

We can certainly conclude that this practice in men is at the very worst neutral with regard to sexual function, an advantage with STD prevention and aesthetically simply a matter of choice.

If I were not already mutilated would I have it done now? Nope. You decide for yourselves.

[Rugoz]

The science is clear...

I don't need science to tell me that a foreskin is nice to have, because I actually have one.

But if you insist, here's some reading for you:

Cultural Bias in the AAP’s 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on Male Circumcision

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... 6.full.pdf

Do you think cutting hair or fingernails is mutilation?

That's literally the dumbest thing I've read here in a while.

One thing is certain. Several studies show that there is no statistically significant difference in erectile function between men who are circumcised and those who are not.

It's super easy to find studies saying the opposite. E.g.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17155977

CONCLUSION: There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.

I obviously don't have time to conduct a literature review.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

We have solid evidence that this practice has been done since 2400 BC. It is probably much older than that.

But I see that our resident brain trust has decided to go to personal attack. Typical for them. I understand how angry someone can get when they are getting trounced in an argument.

Regarding sensitivity. The tests results are often used to mislead. To put it succinctly, one can't test the sensitivity of about 40cm of skin that is not there. So the tests showing that there is no loss of sensitivity only measure it in areas possessed by circumcised and uncircumcised men alike.

The fact that the practice may date back before 2400 BC only puts further weight the the argument that circumcision is an outdated act of barbarism.

Also the foreskin itself has little sensitivity but acts as a protective hood to the sensitive tip of the penis. There can be no doubt that circumcision reduces sensitivity otherwise circumcised men would be in a constant state of discomfort.

[Drlee]

There can be no doubt that circumcision reduces sensitivity otherwise circumcised men would be in a constant state of discomfort.

wrong. Just wrong.

On Edit.

How about Canadian Pediatricians? They do not recommend circumcision of all males. But they do say this:

Current evidence indicates that there are potential health benefits associated with male circumcision, particularly in high-risk populations. Infant circumcision reduces the incidence of UTI in young boys and eliminates the need for medical circumcision in later childhood to treat recurrent balanoposthitis, paraphimosis and phimosis. Circumcised men have a lower risk of developing penile cancer, while the incidence of trichomonas, bacterial vaginosis and cervical cancer in the female partners of circumcised men is also reduced. Circumcision in adult men can reduce the risk of acquiring an STI (specifically HIV, HSV and HPV). Minor complications of circumcision can occur, although severe complications are rare. The risk of complications is lower in infants than in older children. The complication rate decreases significantly when the procedure is performed by experienced health care professionals, with close follow-up in the days postprocedure to ensure that bleeding does not increase.

[Seeker8]

Such vitriol from Drlee and Godstud regarding this issue leads me to believe that circumcision must create some kind of complex.

Yea, they seem very angry about it. And Dr lee seems desperate to ignore all evidence that contradicts his stupid claims.

[Drlee]

Yea, they seem very angry about it. And Dr lee seems desperate to ignore all evidence that contradicts his stupid claims.

Ahh. No. I am not angry and I detect no anger in Godstud's comments. We have both said that we are fine with whatever anyone wants to do. Our point, if I may speak for him under correction, is that the term Male Genital Mutilation is wrong. Our points are:

1. Circumcision is not mutilation. It is an elective surgical procedure.

2. Like all medical procedures, parents can make the decision for their children in most cases.

3. There are very good medical reasons for circumcision and that IMO they outweigh any minor disadvantages.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

It appears that you are the angry one.

[Stormsmith]

It appears that you are the angry one.

That's what I thought.

[Seeker8]

Well if you thought i was angry, genital mutilation of babies is at least a good reason for it. Especially with people like Dr Lee making stupid arguments against it (Like comparing haircuts ).

But it seems that Dr Lee and Godstud's anger is because they've been mutilated themselves, that's why they are defending the practice.

There's masses of studies showing terrible physical and psychological damage from MGM, so much i can't even be bothered to post it all because it will be ignored anyway.

Look at how Rugoz has made some good arguments and shown studies and has been completely ignored by Dr Lee. It's pretty obvious he'll never accept it's wrong.

[Godstud]

Why do you make the idiotic assumption that we are angry? Why do you then dismiss actual scientific evidence immediately after that?

YOU are the one making the emotional melodramatic argument, @Seeker8, not Drlee and I.

There's masses of studies showing terrible physical and psychological damage from MGM, so much i can't even be bothered to post it all because it will be ignored anyway.

Post a scientific one, please. You making the claim that there are is horseshit, and simply a lie. Your trolling is weak.

[Seeker8]

I already have and you ignored it, Rugoz did and you ignored it. Like i said, it's pointless arguing with people who have had MGM as you will never accept any evidence.

The foreskin is there for a reason, to protect one of the most sensitive parts of the body. But you can't understand that because you don't have one.

[Godstud]

Like i said, it's pointless arguing with people who have had MGM as you will never accept any evidence.

So in other words, you didn't post anything and are making up lies to promote some crybaby myth about MGM.

Rugoz pointed out something about a cultural bias, and not an actual study about circumcision. it does not support your argument about circumcision harming men, and certainly not being referred to as MGM.

The foreskin is there for a reason, to protect one of the most sensitive parts of the body. But you can't understand that because you don't have one.

Sure, just keep ignoring medical science. It makes you SMRT.

[Seeker8]

:lol: So in other words, you didn't post anything and are making up lies to promote some crybaby myth about MGM.

You just proved my point by completely ignoring the first part of that paragraph, here:

I already have and you ignored it, Rugoz did and you ignored it.

Rugoz pointed out something about a cultural bias, and not an actual study about circumcision. it does not support your argument about circumcision harming men, and certainly not being referred to as MGM.

So that's a blatant lie.
See, again completely ignored the study Rugoz posted in the SAME post as the cultural bias one.
Here i'll post it again:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17155977

CONCLUSION: There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.

Can you see it now?

And here's what males are being deprived of when their foreskin is cut off:

What Are the Foreskin's Functions?
The foreskin has numerous protective, sensory, and sexual functions.

Protection: Just as the eyelids protect the eyes, the foreskin protects the glans and keeps its surface soft, moist, and sensitive. It also maintains optimal warmth, pH balance, and cleanliness. The glans itself contains no sebaceous glands-glands that produce the sebum, or oil, that moisturizes our skin.11 The foreskin produces the sebum that maintains proper health of the surface of the glans.

Immunological Defense: The mucous membranes that line all body orifices are the body's first line of immunological defense. Glands in the foreskin produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme.12 Lysozyme is also found in tears and mother's milk. Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, an immune system component, abound in the foreskin's outer surface.13 Plasma cells in the foreskin's mucosal lining secrete immunoglobulins, antibodies that defend against infection.14

Erogenous Sensitivity: The foreskin is as sensitive as the fingertips or the lips of the mouth. It contains a richer variety and greater concentration of specialized nerve receptors than any other part of the penis.15 These specialized nerve endings can discern motion, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations of texture.16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23

Coverage During Erection: As it becomes erect, the penile shaft becomes thicker and longer. The double-layered foreskin provides the skin necessary to accommodate the expanded organ and to allow the penile skin to glide freely, smoothly, and pleasurably over the shaft and glans.

Self-Stimulating Sexual Functions: The foreskin's double-layered sheath enables the penile shaft skin to glide back and forth over the penile shaft. The foreskin can normally be slipped all the way, or almost all the way, back to the base of the penis, and also slipped forward beyond the glans. This wide range of motion is the mechanism by which the penis and the orgasmic triggers in the foreskin, frenulum, and glans are stimulated.

Sexual Functions in Intercourse: One of the foreskin's functions is to facilitate smooth, gentle movement between the mucosal surfaces of the two partners during intercourse. The foreskin enables the penis to slip in and out of the vagina nonabrasively inside its own slick sheath of self-lubricating, movable skin. The female is thus stimulated by moving pressure rather than by friction only, as when the male's foreskin is missing.
The foreskin fosters intimacy between the two partners by enveloping the glans and maintaining it as an internal organ. The sexual experience is enhanced when the foreskin slips back to allow the male's internal organ, the glans, to meet the female's internal organ, the cervix-a moment of supreme intimacy and beauty.

The foreskin may have functions not yet recognized or understood. Scientists in Europe recently detected estrogen receptors in its basal epidermal cells.24 Researchers at the University of Manchester found that the human foreskin has apocrine glands.25 These specialized glands produce pheromones, nature's chemical messengers. Further studies are needed to fully understand these features of the foreskin and the role they play.

The last part i bolded is important. How arrogant are people that think they already know everything about a human organ. Remember Scientists used to say the appendix was useless, until they discovered its function.

[Pants-of-dog]

I think that if FGM was reduced to a symbolic pricking, I may hvae no problem with that.