Father trying to have 12-year-old son circumcised

Lisa · Post by **Lisa** » 2007-04-19 04:06am

A friend of mine had circumcision done when he was 13, said it was excruciating...

and if that's not reason enough

wiki on david reimer.

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2007-04-19 04:34am

I feel sick

Netko · Post by **Netko** » 2007-04-19 05:44am

Lisa wrote:A friend of mine had circumcision done when he was 13, said it was excruciating...

and if that's not reason enough

wiki on david reimer.

As disgusting as this story is (and I'm aghast that the judiciary didn't say NO immediately - don't you have a category of "older minor" or similar which forces the child's choices to start to matter and be only overruled in extreme cases over there?), lets not start trowing around anecdotes (for example, my own, for medical reasons, circumcision was essentially pain free with a local - it felt more strange then painful, and I'm sure you can find people from the entire spectrum).

That father should be charged with child abuse if there was any justice in the world (and there is not). How come the mother hasn't mounted a successful custody battle for the child? She is involved in the case otherwise is she not? Wouldn't attempting to force a child into an utterly unnecessary surgery by the dickwad father not be big points for her custody case?

This is one of those absolutely stomach turning cases.

Post by **Cairber** » 2007-04-19 07:17am

CIrcumcision is big in the news the past fwe days it seems. Now we have yet ANOTHER case of a couple sueing a hospital after their infant son was disfigured as a result of routine infant circumcision:

The couple alleges that due to negligence, their son was physically disfigured and has required medical care a a result of the surgery.

story

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2007-04-19 10:18am

Darth Wong wrote:
Ted C wrote:I'm getting reports on blogs that the story is a hoax.
And "blogs" are worth ... what, exactly?

You know, I was going to defend the source, but now I can't find the post where I read it.

RIPP_n_WIPE · Post by **RIPP_n_WIPE** » 2007-04-19 09:01pm

I don't want to get too too off topic here but what really is wrong with circumcision? Granted, I don't think this dude should be having his song whack his foreskin off, but in general, why does it become such a passion for some people, barring those who had botched jobs? Note I am circumcised myself.

TheLemur · Post by **TheLemur** » 2007-04-19 09:09pm

I don't want to get too too off topic here but what really is wrong with circumcision?

It's totally unnecessary genital mutilation. Or do you support the idea of having body parts hacked off for no reason at birth?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2007-04-19 09:09pm

I'd be pretty pissed at my parents if they had chosen to lop off a portion of my dick for no reason other than religious dogma or so I could look like Dad (my father is cut). Fortunatly my Mom is a nurse and pretty clued in on the issue. Frankly there's no reason to do it anymore now that we have invented soap or for a medical condition that arrises later on in life. We opted not to have our son cut, so that he wouldn't have to go through any pain after being born. Frankly we wern't aware of the issues with sexual sensitivity until recently but I'm glad we opted not to cut our son so as not to deprive him of that.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2007-04-19 09:23pm

RIPP_n_WIPE wrote:I don't want to get too too off topic here but what really is wrong with circumcision? Granted, I don't think this dude should be having his song whack his foreskin off, but in general, why does it become such a passion for some people, barring those who had botched jobs? Note I am circumcised myself.

Do you see anything wrong with tattooing a newborn baby?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-04-19 09:29pm

RIPP_n_WIPE wrote:I don't want to get too too off topic here but what really is wrong with <chopping off an ear>? Granted, I don't think this dude should be having his song whack his foreskin off, but in general, why does it become such a passion for some people, barring those who had botched jobs? Note I am circumcised myself.

I'll tell you what, how about we chop off a bit of your earlobe while you don't have any kind of anesthetic whatsoever? It's pretty much the same thing, and you're not going to miss a bit of earlobe, right? So you shouldn't have a problem with it.

Yokel on an Island · Post by **Yokel on an Island** » 2007-04-19 09:58pm

General Zod wrote:I'll tell you what, how about we chop off a bit of your earlobe while you don't have any kind of anesthetic whatsoever? It's pretty much the same thing, and you're not going to miss a bit of earlobe, right? So you shouldn't have a problem with it.

In fact you can even make a stronger case AGAINST circumcision than Van Gogh antics, since the loss of the foreskin decreases sexual sensitivity. About all losing that benefits is the EXTERNAL medieval religious mindset. I don't really care if a male reaches adulthood and decides to lop it off, but the parents should never make the decision for their child.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-04-19 10:02pm

Yokel on an Island wrote:
General Zod wrote:I'll tell you what, how about we chop off a bit of your earlobe while you don't have any kind of anesthetic whatsoever? It's pretty much the same thing, and you're not going to miss a bit of earlobe, right? So you shouldn't have a problem with it.
In fact you can even make a stronger case AGAINST circumcision than Van Gogh antics, since the loss of the foreskin decreases sexual sensitivity. About all losing that benefits is the EXTERNAL medieval religious mindset. I don't really care if a male reaches adulthood and decides to lop it off, but the parents should never make the decision for their child.

I know there's other arguments I can use, but for pointing out as to why it's not a good thing this is plenty.

Yokel on an Island · Post by **Yokel on an Island** » 2007-04-19 10:05pm

General Zod wrote:I know there's other arguments I can use, but for pointing out as to why it's not a good thing this is plenty.

I know, I was being a pedant. Not to mention Van Gogh didn't do any redecoration on his ear anyway.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2007-04-20 02:21am

For those not really aware of the true function of the foreskin, this is a very good page.

http://indra.com/~shredder/intact/anatomy/

Have a read and you'll understand a bit of what you've lost if you're cut.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2007-04-20 02:31am

In fact you can even make a stronger case AGAINST circumcision than Van Gogh antics, since the loss of the foreskin decreases sexual sensitivity.

Even though this is common sense, and backed by science, other organizations, some of them 'reputable' or at least large in scope, will also try to say there are studies showing no difference in sensitivity, or at least no significant comparison between them. Of course if you look carefully you'll see that they aren't REALLY comparing them in a proper head to head way (OUCH! That was a bad pun).

It's all seems to be a mixture of correlation, circumstantial and irrelevant criteria measurements, and deliberate ignoring of ACTUAL feedback from people who would know. Those circed as adults. With extremely few exceptions, (and those usually had phimosis which would potentially prevent proper sensitivity), all adults I spoke to that were cut as adults said it was much better with the foreskin.

Conveniently this never seems to be mentioned in the majority of articles, news stories, editorials, etc. I'm convinced the mainstream medical establishment is just pro-circumcision for the money. Not only is the operation another billable procedure, but selling foreskin is big business. It's special skin because it's hairless. Most people aren't aware that hospitals sell your damn skin to the highest bidders.

Yokel on an Island · Post by **Yokel on an Island** » 2007-04-20 02:44am

Justforfun000 wrote:.....Not only is the operation another billable procedure, but selling foreskin is big business. It's special skin because it's hairless. Most people aren't aware that hospitals sell your damn skin to the highest bidders.

This IS news to me. If true, it's particularly damning.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2007-04-20 03:17am

This IS news to me. If true, it's particularly damning.

It's supposed to be illegal to sell human tissue and organs in the US, but from what I've come across, that doesn't stop it from happening. There are many ways around such restrictions. Universities and other places can get "donations" as well.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2007-04-20 04:09am

Rye wrote:
RIPP_n_WIPE wrote:I don't want to get too too off topic here but what really is wrong with circumcision? Granted, I don't think this dude should be having his song whack his foreskin off, but in general, why does it become such a passion for some people, barring those who had botched jobs? Note I am circumcised myself.
Do you see anything wrong with tattooing a newborn baby?

They tattooed a small "1" on my left shoulder-blade at birth, so my parents could tell me and my twin brother apart. He got an 'A' on his shoulder. You can't hardly see it now.

Yokel on an Island · Post by **Yokel on an Island** » 2007-04-20 04:26am

CaptainChewbacca wrote:They tattooed a small "1" on my left shoulder-blade at birth, so my parents could tell me and my twin brother apart. He got an 'A' on his shoulder. You can't hardly see it now.

If you were older you should have quipped, "I am not a number. I am a FREE man!" THEN they laugh maniacally.

(Sorry, but I had to say it.

)

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2007-04-20 06:49am

Foreskin website wrote:Many doctors in the US have no idea what a foreskin does or what it is good for. These doctors know only about the "problems" guys can have with their foreskins and know of no solutions other than circumcision. No anatomy textbook that I've ever seen has an accurate diagram of what the foreskin is or how it works, although I havn't looked lately (if there is one, I'd like to know). The following pictures are intended show a lot more.

Okay, what the fuck? I have a book by a Polish doctor at home called "What boys should know?" that was directed towards adolescent boys. The book has been written in the fucking sixties and described in detail what the foreskin does and how to keep it clean.

Is it really so hard to teach boys they chould pull it back and clean under it? I've figured it out by myself. It's really pretty obvious. Why would doctors know of no solution to hygene problems other than circumcision? Such as goddamned soap?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2007-04-20 09:55am

PeZook wrote:
Okay, what the fuck? I have a book by a Polish doctor at home called "What boys should know?" that was directed towards adolescent boys. The book has been written in the fucking sixties and described in detail what the foreskin does and how to keep it clean.

Is it really so hard to teach boys they chould pull it back and clean under it? I've figured it out by myself. It's really pretty obvious. Why would doctors know of no solution to hygene problems other than circumcision? Such as goddamned soap?

Part of the problem is that in the US doctors and parents get paid a certain amount to circumcise an infant. And the skin goes towards research. Cairber has posted an article on it before.

loomer · Post by **loomer** » 2007-04-21 12:32am

There's a few reasons that may be part of why fundies in general approve of it.

One, reduced sexual pleasure.
Two, no need for lubricant while masturbating (I don't need it, anyway. Though does make a nice change once in a while. By comparison, my best friend, circumsized, does need to use lube.)

Less fun from sex, harder to whack off spontaneously. Fundie's delight.

Post by **Cairber** » 2007-04-22 05:08pm

"Every baby boy in the USA is born with a 300$ coupon attached to the end of their penis. All the doctor has to do to collect is cut it off."

I saw that in the signature of a fellow NOCIRC member. We know that money is the main issue keeping circumcision so popular in the USA. Yes, societal influences play their role, but in the states where medicaid and insurances have stopped paying for circumcisions, rates have dropped significantly to the point where circumcision is becoming nonexistant (Oregon, California, Colorado and the like).

ANd I agree with all my heart that the medical community in the USA learns and knows nothing about the foreskin except how to cut it off (at least in the midwest, east and south). Forced retraction and diagnosis of "needs circumcision" happen way too often. Too many nurses are not taught how to cath a nonretractable intact penis.Slowly things are changing.

I think I was most disheartened when a poster on another board scanned her anatomy textbook to show us how the illustrator had made a fetus in the womb circumcised in the chapter on fetal development. sigh.....

Post by **Cairber** » 2007-04-22 05:10pm

In case you ever wonder where your foreskin went:

http://www.norm-uk.org/where_do_foreskins_go.html

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2007-04-23 07:31pm

Lisa wrote:A friend of mine had circumcision done when he was 13, said it was excruciating...

Hold on. I know they don't endorse anasthetic use on babies because of the risk of an improper dosage, but I had when I was in 5th grade (they were stitching up the back of my head, which had been split open), and I'm positive they used some form of numbing agent. Why can't the same be done for teens and circumcision?