San Francisco Circumcision Ban - Page 10

**Jiro** · 06-11-2011, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatdidyousay!

I had sex with guys that were circumcise and guys that where not circumcise
and the sex was fine both ways and one boyfriend that was not circumcise was great ! Having sex with him was very comfortable, so comfortable that we had sex everyday!!

posts from hell · 06-11-2011, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Sure. This is common knowledge.

See page 1. The outer ear alone helps increase sound upward to 5 to 6 dB.
http://www.nmcphc.med.navy.mil/downl...fthe%20ear.ppt

How does the ear work

You can increase the dB into the ear by cupping your ear with your hand, too.

Example of a person born with no outer ears but cochleas function normally.
Hearing help with the Baha device | abc12.com

In short, yeah, the outer ear is important for a hearing person.

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.

**Banjo** · 06-11-2011, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by posts from hell

not THAT important. But if a parent wanted to chop it off, would you have any issues? It's the parents rights after all, right?

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.

**deafskeptic** · 06-11-2011, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banjo

Yes, it's estimated that 10% to 20% of Canadians born these days are left intact. Thank God. There's no need to severe 20,000 nerve endings, it's the most nerve-clustered section of the body. The only reason why circumcision existed was to reduce both men and women's sexual energy, which has failed miserably anyway.

So you're saying that 80% to 90% of Canadians baby boys are circumcisioned? That's a lot to me.

**Foxrac** · 06-12-2011, 12:04 AM

I talked with my parent about circumcision and they said that medical is part of reason to be circumcised because doctor said I was in greater risk for urology-related cancers (like penile cancer is one of them) in later in my life. I was like not surprised and wonder about it.

This one is additional reason to hygiene that I stated in my post.

**Foxrac** · 06-12-2011, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

So you're saying that 80% to 90% of Canadians baby boys are circumcisioned? That's a lot to me.

No, intact = uncircumcised.

**Jiro** · 06-12-2011, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

I talked with my parent about circumcision and they said that medical is part of reason to be circumcised because doctor said I was in greater risk for urology-related cancers (like penile cancer is one of them) in later in my life. I was like not surprised and wonder about it.

This one is additional reason to hygiene that I stated in my post.

lol believe me - foreskin is definitely not a big contributing factor for urology-related cancers. it's mostly genetic and/or age factor

**Foxrac** · 06-12-2011, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

lol believe me - foreskin is definitely not a big contributing factor for urology-related cancers. it's mostly genetic and/or age factor

It wasn't my choice but it was my parent and doctor.

I don't think it was funny, anyway.

**deafskeptic** · 06-12-2011, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

No, intact = uncircumcised.

OK I stand corrected. I've looked back at banjo's post and I see that you're right.

kokonut · 06-12-2011, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by posts from hell

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.

The outer ear is functional in its purpose by increasing sound of about 10-15 dB (Powered by Google Docs or http://tinyurl.com/3kv8jve) in freq range of 1500-7000Hz (range of human speech), allow the increased ability to localize sound and better fidelity Removing the ears would essentially cause the baby to become hard of hearing whose quality of life would drop. Instead of the normal 25 dB hearing level the hearing baby (all of them) has to live with this permanent impairment on hearing loss for the rest of their life with a 35 to 40 db loss. This will make the baby as having mild to moderate hearing loss. Outer ears are quite functional and useful.

As for the foreskin functional purpose? Not so much. Just a flap of folded skin that just gets in the way and not very hygienic, either.

Can't compare the two.

Sorry.

kokonut · 06-12-2011, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banjo

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.

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

*snip*
*snip*

Done.

flip · 06-12-2011, 03:25 AM

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

Effects of male circumcision on female arousal and orgasm

Quote:

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

Just a piece of skin that no one cares about?

kokonut · 06-12-2011, 03:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by posts from hell

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.

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.

flip · 06-12-2011, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

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.

Not to mention that you stay fit as you have to work your ass off to keep the vagina of your spouse wet.

Aleser · 06-12-2011, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

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.

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?

kokonut · 06-12-2011, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aleser

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?

Might want to ask WHO that question.

WHO | World Health Organization

**Jiro** · 06-12-2011, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Might want to ask WHO that question.

WHO | World Health Organization

FYI - this is not an issue for us especially well-developed nations

Aleser · 06-12-2011, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Might want to ask WHO that question.

WHO | World Health Organization

"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.

jazzy · 06-12-2011, 11:51 AM

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.

Aleser · 06-12-2011, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzy

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.

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.

DeafCaroline · 06-12-2011, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aleser

Until then there is never a reason to pull back the foreskin and it is both painful and harmful to the child.

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.

Aleser · 06-12-2011, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeafCaroline

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.

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.

**Reba** · 06-12-2011, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by posts from hell

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?

The outer ear does perform functions.

What religious beliefs require cutting off children's ears?

**Reba** · 06-12-2011, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by posts from hell

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.

Chop it off for what reason?

Quote:

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

Debatable.

**Reba** · 06-12-2011, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banjo

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.

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?

**Reba** · 06-12-2011, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

OK I stand corrected. I've looked back at banjo's post and I see that you're right.

"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.

AlleyCat · 06-12-2011, 01:55 PM

We had a lot of guests over this weekend, as usual. (My house is apparently a party house

)

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

DeafCaroline · 06-12-2011, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlleyCat

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.

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.

**Banjo** · 06-12-2011, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

So you're saying that 80% to 90% of Canadians baby boys are circumcisioned? That's a lot to me.

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.

AlleyCat · 06-12-2011, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeafCaroline

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.

Cool! How old are your sons? Just curious!

06-12-2011, 12:04 AM	#275 (permalink)
Foxrac Need Stormtroopers? Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Zaphias Posts: 32,544	I talked with my parent about circumcision and they said that medical is part of reason to be circumcised because doctor said I was in greater risk for urology-related cancers (like penile cancer is one of them) in later in my life. I was like not surprised and wonder about it. This one is additional reason to hygiene that I stated in my post. __________________ In Moto We Trust

06-12-2011, 11:51 AM	#289 (permalink)
jazzy Registered User Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: High desert in Calif Posts: 4,208	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. rockin'robin and ladysolitary85 like this. __________________

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

06-12-2011, 01:55 PM	#297 (permalink)
AlleyCat Registered User Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In my time zone Posts: 10,808	We had a lot of guests over this weekend, as usual. (My house is apparently a party house ) 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