Foreskin 'toy'

Oops, that would be *I* at the beginning there.

A lot of people circumcize their sons because of religious philosophies, medical theories about cleanliness, or because it's the norm. My mother had my twin brother circumcized because of the last two reasons, and my brother says he doesn't care either way "as long as it still works." =P

Religion, cleanliness issues, etc. There's no real practical reason for it; teaching young kids to clean properly is simple.

I only had 5 weeks in a maternity rotation. Infant's feeding schedules aren't interrupted. They get a sugar dipped pacifier now. I've seen one physician use a topical numbing agent. Most don't. All the ones I saw screamed bloody murder. It horrified me..... Just what I've witnessed. It may be different at various institutions.

Just to let you know from both posts you posted. HIV anyone can get either if you are circumcised or non. If you wear a condom you'll be fine and if you don't go out and screw everything with a "hole" you'll be fine. In very simply terms.

HIV is a disease of people just messing around and not taking full safety precautions.

Also. Circumcision does lower the sensitivity of a male. Like FGM does for a female. You lose 50,000 nerve ending which means you lose a lot of feeling so you can't enjoy it like non circumcised people can.

Either way. It should be in America where the parent teaches the kid to clean properly until they get older and they can make the discussion them self to either cut it off or not.

Look at all a lot of other countries Europe doesn't do much circumcision and I don't see them women complaining about anything.

There was a study done that women who have slept with an uncircumcised man sex was a lot better.

Two things: first, the study proves that for unprotected sex, a male is 70% less likely to contract HIV through heterosexual sex. So, no: seven out of ten cases, the unprotected circumcised man does NOT become infected. Your characterization of HIV as "a disease of people just messing around and not taking full safety precautions" is a gross oversimplification and deserves no further comment from me. I'm frankly surprised to see that on a sex-positive site.

Second: it's extremely offensive and ignorant to claim that FGM and male circumcision are even remotely in the same category. Read up on FGM.

I find the claim that they're NOT related pretty offensive. I think the institutionalized mutilation of infant's penises is one of America's darkest 'open' secrets. All thanks to a nutjob called Kellogg, who claimed it reduced the frequency of masturbation.

Kids in the third world have their foreskins hacked off with rocks and rusty metal. An infant in Brooklyn died of Herpes, contracted from the Rabbi who performed his circumcision.

It's a brutal, backwards tradition that no informed parent would willingly put their kid through. Unfortunately, there's so much misinformation out there that many parents just 'do it' so their kids will have a penis resembling their father's.

In the western world, where we have access to water and education, the so-called 'benefits' of circumcision are disproportionate to the risks of the procedure (I prefer the term 'mutilation.')

I don't want to sound like I'm advocating circumcision: I just want people to be aware that there are concrete disease-prevention reasons that people might choose to circumcise. The scientists in the study I linked above had to stop the study months early because the results were so overwhelmingly clear: they could not ethically continue the study without offering every single participant circumcision because it was so effective at preventing HIV transmission. In a perfect world, no one would have to worry about HIV transmission. As it stands, parents should not be demonized or made to feel ashamed of their decision if they have their son circumcised to prevent infection (this holds especially for people in Africa since infection rates are so high). Obviously, the lower the individual infection rate, the less the community needs to worry. It's a herd phenomenon and I think it's perfectly reasonable justification. People will make whatever decision they make, but they should have all the facts.

I do take issue, however with saying that make circumcision and FGM are even related: they are similar in that both involve genital regions. The similarities end there. The motivations are completely different: male circumcision is often motivated by tradition, aesthetics, and health concerns. It does not (when not botched) result in long-term crippling of sexual function. FGM is motivated by a desire to control the sexuality of the victim, to make it impossible for that victim to have sexual agency, and to express ownership over that victim. It's apples and oranges.

Red Roulette, there is no need to apologize for feeling strongly about something you believe in at all! I've taken no offense and I doubt that anyone else has either. I actually love to see someone that so strongly supports their beliefs. No, I don't expect everyone to have the same beliefs and, that would not make for an interesting conversation..... Those are all very tragic stories but, there are tragic stories to all types of procedures also. I feel if someone chooses to have it done, they make that decision knowing everything that could happen and that's their choice. As far as circumcising a newborn...I'm not so sure what to think really. Yes, they might grow up and hate their parents for having it done but, the could also turn around and hate them for not having it done so, I don't know. It could go both ways.... I don't think a parent is wrong for choosing to have it done and I don't think they are wrong for not doing it. It's just their personal choice I guess.

I will agree that the situation in Africa is DEFINITELY different to the situation here.

In the western world, the 'benefits' of circumcision compared to the risks are negligible. So why do it?

And listen, I don't want to offend you, but I TOTALLY disagree with you on the subject of FGM and you'll find I'm not alone. Certainly, male circumcision isn't nearly as severe, but even WHO workers in Africa acknowledge that they're related.

This is the transcript of a radio interview with Dr. Nahid Toubia, physician and director of Research Arction Information Network for the Bodily Integrity of Women:

Maureen Primerana asked: "I understand that in the communities where female genital mutilation occurs, it is often referred to as female circumcision, however, this term implies an analogy with male circumcision, which is not the case. Could you explain the difference?"

Dr NahidToubia replied: "Well, I disagree with you that it's not the case. I think the people who say that there are no similarities are people who don't want to address male circumcision basically. Number one, they're done as a ritual. It's not done to mutilate anybody. It's done as a positive cultural ritual even though it creates damage. But the intent of it is something to keep the child part of the community, part of their peer group, part of an ancestral ritual that's based on culture, sometimes in a misperception, sometimes some people feel it's based on religion. So in that sense, it's not that different from male circumcision. And many of the societies that do female circumcision actually do male circumcision around the same time. They don't see this difference. The other similarity, I think, is the fact that it's done on a child without the child's consent. Now, regardless of the degree of damage, I think any physical cutting of a child, to our understanding today in the 1990s is a human rights violation of that child.

FGM does, in fact, mutilate. To show this let's run through what male circumcision would look like if it were parallel to FGM:

The frenulum (which I'm using here as a substitute for the clitoris) would be cut off entirely so as to eliminate any pleasurable sexual feelings for the remainder of the victim's life. The opening of the penis would be sewn shut. The thread holding the opening shut would be periodically cut open whenever someone in control of this male decided they would allow the male to ejaculate. Then it would be sewn shut again. The male in question would have no control over when or if any of this would be happening. The male in question would be permanently unable to feel sexual pleasure, or control their sexuality at all.
This process would be done entirely without anaesthetic with high risk of reinfection any time opening is opened and sewn shut again.

FGM and male circumcision are not parallel. Anthropologically speaking, the culture might wish to believe they are, but they're objectively not. Like I said, this largely comes down to issues of power and control.

Oh, and rates of HIV transmission in homosexual and minority communities in this country are quite high. It's not as though there's no potential benefit.

Male circumcision has also been shown to reduce the rate of transmission of HPV, which is prevalent in the western world.

Again, I'm saying, make your own decisions, but it's not like there are no reasons to circumcise. It's not a foregone conclusion.

Oh, and rates of HIV transmission in homosexual and minority communities in this country are quite high. It's not as though there's no potential benefit.

Male circumcision has also been shown to reduce the rate of transmission of HPV, which is prevalent in the western world.

Again, I'm saying, make your own decisions, but it's not like there are no reasons to circumcise. It's not a foregone conclusion.

I did say in an earlier post that they were similar in that both involve genital regions.

True that the infant male has no control, but women subject to FGM are continuously victimized, repeatedly during their adult lives. Their sexuality is actively controlled by other people. There's a concrete social difference between being a male (and therefore in a high social standing) and being female (and by default in lower social standing in most parts of the world). With these social differences come differences in treatment.

I'm not actually sure why you're trying to draw such a strong connection between FGM and male circumcision in the first place. All I know is that whenever FGM is discussed, men always come out of the woodwork to proclaim loudly why male circumcision is just as bad and just as big of a problem. It's objectively NOT.