Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
SNIP SNIP

Judge Chops SF Anti-Circumcision Bill, Parents Free To Mutilate Kids

Fans of cut penises, breath easy. California Superior Judge Loretta Giorgi just declared San Francisco’s proposed circumcision ban unconstitutional and struck it from the November ballot.

Giorigi ruled the ban violates religious freedoms and oversteps a law leaving all medical procedural regulations to the state.

We guess Foreskin Man will have lot more innocent children to “save” from the scapel.

By:           Daniel Villarreal
On:           Jul 29, 2011
Tagged: ,
  • 61 Comments
    • Bob
      Bob

      It figures that a woman kills this bill. Little does she care for the baby boys who will are altered and will never have the choice to make on themselves. So, if some African religions require female circumcision, that should be okay too then under this ruling…no? Let’s see if that would ever stand! This is genital mutilation and nothing else. If someone wants this, they should be a consenting adult over 18 and the decision should not be left to a woman to make for a male child.

      Jul 29, 2011 at 10:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Daniel Villarreal
      Daniel Villarreal

      @Bob: I feel the same way about homos who think women who get abortions are slutty, murderous “bitches.”

      Jul 29, 2011 at 10:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JayKay
      JayKay

      Of course this ruling comes from a woman judge.

      Put a case involving female circumcision in front of her and see how much she cares about religious freedom.

      Jul 29, 2011 at 10:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dvlaries
      dvlaries

      Maybe it’s years of conditioning that I don’t realize. When they’re battle-ready I think they all look good, but when they’re at ease I like still being able to see the ‘face.’

      But Bob (No. 1 ) is right: if it’s to be done, it should entirely be the decision of the owner, and not until they’re old enough to make an informed decision.

      Jul 29, 2011 at 10:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pete n SFO
      Pete n SFO

      The ballot question was flawed, but I think it’s great that the level of awareness has been increased.

      Obviously, adults should be making this decision for themselves… as adults. Religion, parental preference, cultural norms (USA only) do not trump an individual’s right. I think more parents, at least here in SFO, now understand that.

      I have to say though, the comic strip vilifying Jews? Dude, what were you thinking???

      Jul 29, 2011 at 10:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Manny
      Manny

      When it’s not a medical imperative circumcision is cosmetic surgery, and should be up to the individual, someone needs to stand up for children’s medical rights. Also, it’s really not helpful to be sexist. It’s really a non-issue that a woman made the decision that banned it.

      Jul 29, 2011 at 10:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Velocifero
      Velocifero

      Isn’t there more pressing issues in the world then this stupid ballot measure?

      Jul 29, 2011 at 10:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jack
      Jack

      Anti-Semitic much, Queerty? I’m circumcised and I love it. I also prefer men who are circumcised. I know some gays are painfully unaware of the female body, but male and female circumcision are two completely different beasts.

      And the cheap shot: Typical of San Francisco and Queerty to oppose anything that would reduce HIV infection rates. Thank God for reasonable judges.

      Jul 29, 2011 at 11:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chad
      Chad

      Easy Jack. Let’s not make the argument for biology education and then spread misinformation about HIV.

      Jul 29, 2011 at 11:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bob
      Bob

      @Daniel Villarreal:
      I believe everyone (male and female) has the right to decide for themselves what to do with their own bodies.

      Jul 29, 2011 at 11:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bob
      Bob

      @Jack:
      I realize that male and female circumcision are two entirely different things, but they are both genital mutiliation (no matter what cut guys want to believe). And by this judge saying that it is religious freedom, it should allow African religions that practice female circumcision to be able to multilate their girls through female circumcison. You cannot have it both ways, just because some people like the look of a cut penis better due to years of American conditioning. Men were made with their foreskins and that is the way they should remain, unless there is a medical problem or they are an adult making the decision for circumcision for themselves.

      Jul 29, 2011 at 11:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jim
      Jim

      @Manny: I think he was inverting a common statement you’d hear in an abortion debate/argument.

      Jul 29, 2011 at 11:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jim
      Jim

      @Bob: There are some who believe it is their religious right to kill their own children if they don’t follow the parents’ religion. Using your logic, people who are okay with circumcision must also support honor killing. It’s a specious argument because you’re drawing a false equivalence.

      Jul 29, 2011 at 11:34 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jewed Law
      Jewed Law

      In all honesty, hardly a day goes by that I don’t thank my lucky stars for being in a country where circumcision is the norm, and I don’t have to look at someone’s dog-like wanker. Likewise, I’d like to thank my parents for removing that disease-prone, cheesy, all-around problematic hank of skin from the end of my dick while I was young and unaware. I’ve known a number of adult men to have it removed; never have I heard a circumcised man state that he wish he still had his hood.

      Jul 29, 2011 at 11:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pete n SFO
      Pete n SFO

      okay, boys…

      enough w/ the hyperbole, sexism & general stone-throwing…

      Dial it back down; the individual in question is the only person that should be making permanent decisions about his genitals.

      It is staggering to me that gay people especially don’t completely embrace that concept.

      Jul 29, 2011 at 11:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bob
      Bob

      @Jewed Law:
      Funny but your name ‘Jewed Law’ sort of says it all about why you think everyone should be cut…lol.

      Jul 29, 2011 at 12:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • christopher di spirito
      christopher di spirito

      San Francisco is a national joke filled with $2,000 a month studio apartments.

      Jul 29, 2011 at 12:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • xander
      xander

      The judge made her decision based on the constitution, as she is required to do.
      The medical issues weren’t in question in her ruling.

      A judge can’t legislate health policy from the bench.

      Whether or not you agree with the referendum, the place to debate the issue is in the legislature, based on the best available evidence.

      Jul 29, 2011 at 12:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CJ
      CJ

      If you’re against a doctor snipping some skin on a male baby that’s 1 week old then I hope that you’re against killing a male or female baby a few weeks before it is born. Oh, unless that’s politically unpopular for you OR you don’t like to be consistent in your argument about parental and child rights. Why is it OK for an adult to kill a baby one week – and two weeks later cutting some skin is some great evil? Get your priorities in order. The rights of a baby – or the rights of the parent?

      Jul 29, 2011 at 1:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • missanthrope
      missanthrope

      @xander:

      Actually in some cases they they can. Google the California prison system receivership.

      And I wouldn’t trust the California legislature to debate what restaurant to go out to this weekend, never mind health policy.

      Jul 29, 2011 at 1:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GayGOP
      GayGOP

      The ballot initiative was originally struck on Supremacy grounds. The California Code bars local governments from regulating medical professionals, as that is the State of California’s job.

      The Constitutional issue came secondly. We protect religion, and have since the first days of the Republic.

      Jul 29, 2011 at 1:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • xander
      xander

      @missanthrope : Thanks for that info. I’m no attorney, but as I understand the difference in the two cases was the Judge’s determination of the (un)constitutionality of the proposed circumcision referendum.

      As to the CA state leg., I’ve not lived there, but based on some readings. it IS a royal mess. And I’m no expert on where you should lunch at the weekend, sorry, Lol!)

      The whole multiple-pages ballots with all the propositions, referendums seems likewise to unfairly allow the majority to vote on rights of minorities.
      (that sort of works in Switzerland, lol, but it’s such a smaller country with different dynamics!)

      Jul 29, 2011 at 1:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • missanthrope
      missanthrope

      “x@missanthrope : Thanks for that info. I’m no attorney, but as I understand the difference in the two cases was the Judge’s determination of the (un)constitutionality of the proposed circumcision referendum.”

      Yes, this decision was on Supremecy ground and was correct, IMHO. Techincally the prison receivership was on cruel and unusual punishment through the denial of and provision of inatequate health care, but mandating prisoners need better health care is a de-facto setting of health policy, but that’s kinda a special circumstance.

      “As to the CA state leg., I’ve not lived there, but based on some readings. it IS a royal mess. And I’m no expert on where you should lunch at the weekend, sorry, Lol!)”

      I live in Nevada and journey to Cali frequently, it is a mess in the legislature. The conservatives from the burbs and rural counties are anti-tax fire-eaters who will impede important legislation for their hobby horse issues and the liberals waste endless energy on “feel good” bills that micro-manage people’s lives and don’t really solve any problems.

      “The whole multiple-pages ballots with all the propositions, referendums seems likewise to unfairly allow the majority to vote on rights of minorities.”

      Pretty much. I think community referendums like this one are effective policy tools. But state-wide referendums on the state level has ruined California through approving popular issues without funding them, like cutting taxes while approving things people generally like and leaving it to the disfunctional legislature to figure out how to fund both cutting taxes and spending money on ballot-approved measures. California, as a whole, is quickly becoming ungovernable.

      Jul 29, 2011 at 3:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jay_max
      jay_max

      All the judge is saying is that there is state preemption on that issue (not for local jurisdictions to decide) and that there are constitutionality issues with trying to ban a religious practice.

      The judge most certainly did not weigh in on whether circumcision was appropriate.

      Jul 29, 2011 at 4:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rolling Eyes
      Rolling Eyes

      1. Instead of reading Queerty’s article (limited, missing important facts) why not go to the source before you blathering idiots prove yourself to be blathering idiots. The judge DID NOT rule on whether circumcision was right or wrong; she said that the current ballot measure was not Constitutionally sound and that a city had no ability to enforce said legislation since the medical practices are governed on a state level. So Bob and JayKay and gang, you seriously owe this woman an apology for your gross misinterpretation of the facts.

      2. As Velocifero wisely pointed out, there are far more important issues in this world than circumcision. NO child that was circumcised shortly after birth remembers the incident and is not scarred – UNLESS THEY CHOOSE TO BE BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO FOCUS THEIR ENERGY ON – by the event. Circumcised men have normal sex lives and enjoy sex just as much as uncut men do. A man who is circumcised has not been mutilated, and seriously draws into question the mental well being of the person making the claim.

      Get over yourselves. Get on with your lives. And stop wasting everyone’s time with your whining.

      Jul 29, 2011 at 6:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • otis
      otis

      I am uncut, born that way in 1963. Midwestern but from european decsent. I am so glad i was left intact. yes, I was teased as a kid since I was a rare site, but now…soooo happy.

      Most of the world is born free and left alone. Let males be males the way they are born to be. just as God Makes gays he makes foreskins too for a reason.

      Jul 29, 2011 at 7:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Henry
      Henry

      @Rolling Eyes: “Circumcised men have normal sex lives and enjoy sex just as much as uncut men do.” That’s not true, actually. Circumcised men get less pleasure from sex than their uncircumcised brethren. That’s what happens when you cut off important nerve endings. There are also some other problems outside of sex. Masturbation is notably less enjoyable, for example.

      Circumcision has always been a Jewish symbol, so Jewish parents should be able to get it for their male children if they want it. The rest of us should be able to choose when we’re adults. That means doctors shouldn’t be performing it routinely on Gentile babies.

      Jul 29, 2011 at 7:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tony
      Tony

      This is one of those issues for people with way too much free time. Most would agree that a parent should be allowed to decide if their children need their appendix removed, a tooth pulled, or their hair cut (and if you don’t agree I have your next cause celebre: Campaign against Follicle Mutilation). All we’re talking about anyway is a piece of skin, not a vital organ.

      Jul 29, 2011 at 7:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rocky
      Rocky

      And, there should be a law against parents piercing the ears of their baby girls. That is mutilation too. No one ever thinks about what a horrible thing that is to do to a child. It must be devastating for some little girls to grow up with devirginized earlobes. While their other friends get to experience the ritual of going to the mall behind their parents back at 16 and getting their ears pierced with a group of their friends. Senseless mutilation that should be banned.

      Jul 29, 2011 at 8:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rocky
      Rocky

      Oh, and braces don’t forget braces. That is oral torture for one and crooked teeth should be the option of the child. They are mutilating the natural way ones teeth grow in just so their kids can have what society considers to be a “beautiful smile”. All the pain and agony that that contraption causes and the pain of getting them. They finally came up with those invisalign plastic things-but some parents are to cheap to at least spare their kids the pain of the metal ones.

      Jul 29, 2011 at 8:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Henry
      Henry

      @Rocky: Are you really comparing the removal of fully functional nerve endings to fixing crooked teeth? If you understand how the analogy works, that means you think the nerve endings are a problem or a defect, like a cleft lip. I guess I’m just not stupid enough to think that a foreskin is anything like a cleft lip.

      Jul 29, 2011 at 8:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rocky
      Rocky

      @Henry: Some teeth grow naturally in a certain way. Who gives the child the choice on how his or her teeth should look? People have asked Madonna,David Letterman, Sandra Bernhard, and Lauren Hutton why they don’t fix their teeth-and they all have said because they don’t want to and they like the way they are. So I see no difference, sorry.

      Jul 29, 2011 at 9:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Henry
      Henry

      @Rocky: I didn’t use the word natural, you did, and that’s pretty much what every anti-gay person talks about, what’s natural. Crooked teeth are just as functional as straight teeth, and a foreskin is to straight teeth what a circumcised head is to crooked teeth. For some reason, Americans clearly have problems understanding analogy. That must be why there was such a push to get them removed from the SATs.

      Jul 29, 2011 at 9:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rocky
      Rocky

      @Henry: Henry calm down I was just kidding-it is not that serious. I never said (at least to my recollection-cuz I’m too lazy to scroll up and read what I wrote) anything about what you said or did’t say. But I love your passion. And, I got a 500 on the verbal part or whatever you call it on my SATs and something like a 400 on the math (so I don’t know what that means to you, cuz it never meant anything to me). Okay, all sarcasm aside. In my humble opinion-I just think that this argument is a bit silly. I am circumcised and I have a very good sex life, I enjoy my penis, and as far as I know it works pretty damn well for me. And, I’m sure the men who are uncircumcised feel the same way because they don’t know any different. Might I have a more pleasurable orgasm and/or “sexual feelings” if I was uncircumcised? Maybe, but then again maybe not. Who is to say-and how can one compare one way or the other. I have been with both type of guys in my life sexually and neither type has ever complained and/or wished that they could change the way they were. My point is that the way I understand it female circumcision makes sex not pleasurable to the girls and women it has been done to and it is done for that very reason. So, they are not capable of having an orgasm or any type of pleasurable feelings during sex and that is why it is done. Where as circumcision may slightly decrease sensations in male genitalia-it obliterates it in female genitalia and that is the difference. The vagina doesn’t function in any way sexually its supposed to. But penises (as far as I know) sexually perform just as well as an uncircumcised penis.

      Jul 29, 2011 at 9:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rocky
      Rocky

      Now if they were cutting off the penis altogether then I would have a problem. I’m surprised that Right Wing Christian Extremist haven’t thought of doing that to gays. Making us into eunuchs-as a solution to homosexuality.

      Jul 29, 2011 at 9:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jeff4justice
      jeff4justice

      Jonathon Conte of Bay Area Intactivists on efforts to ban circumcision of babies:

      Jul 29, 2011 at 9:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rocky
      Rocky

      @Henry: By the way Henry are you British?

      Jul 29, 2011 at 9:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Henry
      Henry

      @Rocky: I guess what I said could seem passionate to a machine. I mean, there’s nothing passionate about pointing out that you don’t understand what an analogy is. I don’t know why you went off on female circumcision, since nobody is talking about that, except for you.

      Jul 29, 2011 at 10:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Henry
      Henry

      @Rocky: No, Rocky, I’m not British. Are you German?

      Jul 29, 2011 at 10:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rocky
      Rocky

      @Henry:God u are bit too serious . I only asked if you were British-cuz a lot of my friends from across the pond use the Americans are “stupid” (before you lose it I know you didn’t say stupid) statement and I British people, so I was just asking. Okay, and even though the response was to you I was actually addressing the whole forum because some above I had brought up female circumcision being the same as male circumcision. I was explaining my overall view and why I was being so sarcastic about it. Listen, I’m not trying to debate with you or anyone else on this matter (it is really not a good thing to do on here-it gets way out of control,people insult each other, and it doesn’t do anything for anyone). I made a couple of over the top sarcastic remarks about the topic and then I explained myself and where I stand on the issue. If you read my post I hope you can see that, but if not that was my intention.

      Jul 30, 2011 at 10:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rocky
      Rocky

      Meant to say I love British people.

      Jul 30, 2011 at 10:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pete n SFO
      Pete n SFO

      Once again, I gotta say, I’m really shocked that gay people, especially, don’t grasp that the individual’s right trumps the parental preferences.

      Circumcision is mostly unnecessary, often connected to religious grounds &/or cultural norms in the USA alone.

      It is not the same as organ surgery (not a lot of unnecessary surgeries happn’n to satisfy parents). Braces are not only aesthetic, but often correct what will be a problem later. Religion? We’re gay, if we can’t see that gay kids should be protected from religion, Gawd help us! And all you guys heralding your cut dicks… really? Have you never noticed how much lube is required for everything? Not so w/ my uncut guys.

      Just for a moment, try and suspend your own cultural prejudice & recognize that an adult should make this decision as an adult for himself. That’s what the ballot measure was about in the first place.

      Jul 30, 2011 at 10:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pete n SFO
      Pete n SFO

      Enjoy…

      Jul 30, 2011 at 11:13 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rocky
      Rocky

      @Pete n SFO: Well, I don’t think I’m heralding it. It’s mine and I love it just the ways it is and I wouldn’t change it because its all I’ve known my entire life. If there was a surgery to correct it I wouldn’t. And, guys with uncircumcised penises I’m pretty sure feel same way as I do about their dicks. My main point is it has not affected me from having a good life and having what I feel is a very good sex life-so I don’t think it is that big of a deal. But, maybe I’m wrong. Men like you are right that I was never given the choice (but as kids I also think there are a lot of things that we are not given the choice about that will affect are adult lives) and maybe it is an outdated practice, but at the same time speaking for me and only me I don’t think it has affected me in any negative way, so it is hard for me to see the harm in it. But, I wouldn’t try to convince someone to do it to their son if they didn’t want to and I would not date someone just because they were uncircumcised. I just never felt for myself or met a man (I’m pretty sure there are some men out there-I just have not met any)that were upset over being cut and that felt like he was not satisfied sexually or was able to lead a fulfilling and content life because of it. If most men had a negative response as adults to being cut then I would be all for a law banning it. But maybe I’m wrong.

      Jul 30, 2011 at 11:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rocky
      Rocky

      @Pete n SFO: Okay, UNCLE! That video was too much! I believe you now-I’m converted. I don’t remember all that (I know of course I didn’t cuz I was like 2 weeks old)-that was a lot of stuff going on in that video. I don’t think I could do that too my kid now. I think my mother did it to me cuz she was a Christian and it was in the bible-but now that I think about it Christians have no reason to do this because as I recall that part was really meant for Jews so that the Jewish men could distinguish themselves from the Gentiles. So, yeah you got me to change my mind about this(has this ever happened on Queerty where someone admits they were wrong? I think I might be the first!)But, yeah this is pointless and horrific to do to a little baby. I’m still not to sure about a law banning it for other reasons I don’t feel like going into right now, but people need to be educated about this to make them think twice before they decide to do it to their child.

      Jul 30, 2011 at 12:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kenny
      Kenny

      As gay men who became parents to twin boys via surrogacy, my partner & I had to make this decision. Although we didn’t opt for circumcision, I could not support a government ban on circumcision. While it’s certainly fun to be a sanctimommy or smugdaddy from time to time, we have to allow parents to make decisions that we may find objectionable. Often times, I have to make decisions that will have a long term impact on my kids. I can only hope that I’m making more of those decisions right rather than wrong. We should be encouraging parents by offering them information to ensure they are well informed on the issue. It’s amazing how quick folks are to judge parents rather than trying to help or be supportive.

      Jul 30, 2011 at 2:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kenny
      Kenny

      And for those who’ve suggested the gender of the judge played a role in the decision, you did oppose Judge Walker, correct?

      Jul 30, 2011 at 2:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • cutit
      cutit

      @Jewed Law:

      AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMEN BROTHER………..thank you mom. I am so happy she did it for free rather then me having to pay for it now

      Jul 30, 2011 at 2:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • cutit
      cutit

      n all honesty, hardly a day goes by that I don’t thank my lucky stars for being in a country where circumcision is the norm, and I don’t have to look at someone’s dog-like wanker. Likewise, I’d like to thank my parents for removing that disease-prone, cheesy, all-around problematic hank of skin from the end of my dick while I was young and unaware. I’ve known a number of adult men to have it removed; never have I heard a circumcised man state that he wish he still had his hood.

      +1000000000000000000000000

      Jul 30, 2011 at 2:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hugh7
      Hugh7

      @Jack: “Typical of San Francisco and Queerty to oppose anything that would reduce HIV infection rates.”
      Study after study has shown no effect on male-male transmission. (Of course, because it is the receptive partner who’s most at risk, and how can being cut help him?)
      The studies claiming protection of men against transmission from women are pretty shonky, too, and one study started to show cutting men increases the risk to women, but they cut that one short for no good reason before it could be confirmed.
      In any case, babies don’t have sex, so there’s plenty of time for them to decide for themselves if they want to lose (the best) part of their penis so as to (slightly) reduce the risk of transmission from women – or use condoms, testing, monogamy, etc. instead, which are much more effective.

      Jul 30, 2011 at 5:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hugh7
      Hugh7

      @cutit: If you still had all you were born with, and especially if you lived in a non-circumcising society where the foreskin wasn’t routinely vilified the way you’ve been taught to do, you’d almost certainly be very happy to still have “my sweet ounce of man’s flesh” (Shakespeare: Love’s Labours Lost). As it is, your diatribe is eerily reminiscent of Peter Remondino (1900): http://www.circumstitions.com/remondino.html . Here are plenty of men who resent being circumcised: http://www.circumstitions.com/Resent.html and many thousands more hate it so much they’re going to a lot of trouble to get back some of what they’ve lost.

      Jul 30, 2011 at 5:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • cutit
      cutit

      @Hugh7:

      I am gonna check no on that. I will start the thank god for cutting me group then and I bet you there are just as many people who would be for it just as you found a site for those who are cut. I mean comon, you can google anything and get anything. Google gay equality in Iran, and i bet you get “thousands” of people for it as well…but lets look at reality..haha

      Jul 30, 2011 at 6:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John Flushing
      John Flushing

      @Rocky: Little kids who are born with a foreskin are perfectly normal. THEY HAVE NOTHING WRONG WITH THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Jul 30, 2011 at 9:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 50 · Hugh7 wrote, “Study after study has shown no effect on male-male transmission. (Of course, because it is the receptive partner who’s most at risk, and how can being cut help him?)”

      See http://www.avert.org/circumcision-hiv.htm . The most dramatic results in favor of it seem to be in Africa.

      But, it was also pointed out that “There are several possible reasons why circumcision has this effect. The foreskin creates a moist environment in which HIV can survive for longer in contact with the most delicate parts of the penis, and the inner surface of the foreskin contains cells that are especially vulnerable to infection by HIV. A study of Ugandan men before and after circumcision concluded that observed decreases in anaerobic bacteria may play a role in reducing the risk of HIV acquisition.12 Removing the foreskin also means that the skin on the head of the penis tends to become tougher and more resistant to infection. In addition, any small tears in the foreskin that occur during sex make it much easier for the virus to enter the body.”

      So, particularly regarding anaerobic bacteria, one question is whether higher standards of cleanliness (and this includes the quality of the water supply used for bathing) makes circumcision less useful in countries with better sanitation (and, of course, frequent bathing). Unfortunately, improving the water supply may be more costly per person than chopping off a foreskin.

      http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html has an anti-circumcision viewpoint but unfortunately its “about” page ends by saying, “We do not disclose our membership list in order to protect our members from economic pressure by those in the medical community who want to preserve an entrenched but outmoded surgical procedure.” It’s hard to tell how many physicians are actually in this organization. The link on its “about” page to its “Mission Statement” is broken (404 not found error), and the “protect our members” excuse sound pretty much like what the pro-Prop-8 people used in an attempt to make donations without anyone knowing who did it (but just because this is a weak excuse doesn’t mean their opinions are necessarily wrong).

      Jul 30, 2011 at 11:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Darnell
      Darnell

      I was circumcised a few years after being born, long enough for the foreskin of my penis to grow before it was snipped off. The area where the foreskin was now shows noticeable scarring. It works fine, but it doesn’t look so great.

      Is this typical for people who wait to get circumcised? I really can’t imagine why someone would willingly get circumcised at an older age. I guess there are some people like that… but I’m not one of them.

      Jul 31, 2011 at 12:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rolling Eyes
      Rolling Eyes

      @Henry: how do you know that it is not true that cut men have just as enjoyable sex as uncut men? You actually don’t. As a cut man I can speak for myself and say my enjoyment of sex is wonderful and I do not feel at all ‘limited’ by my cut cock. Stop speaking out of your ass just because you, personally, would prefer all men to be one way.

      Jul 31, 2011 at 5:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Henry
      Henry

      @Rolling Eyes: Because studies show that it’s less enjoyable. You comment on my experience (apparently, when you say I “don’t know”) but neither of us have tried both cut and uncut on for size. Hardly anyone has. I didn’t say that I wanted all men to be one way, in fact, I said people should be able to choose, but I guess I can’t expect you to read when you think UNCUT people want everyone to be the same.

      Jul 31, 2011 at 6:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Henry
      Henry

      @Henry: Just to clarify. By cut and uncut, I mean for our own penises, of course. It’s not that hard to find uncut guys, but it sure is hard to find someone who became cut later in life after having a lot of uncut sex.

      Jul 31, 2011 at 6:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      #19 Thanks CJ for putting is so well. Hey, I’m all for people doing what they want with their bodies too. But when you are pregnant, it isn’t just you anymore. For good measure, let’s toss in the mountain of hodge-podge contradictory laws that vary from county to county/state to state etc. like abortion is not murder if you DO NOT want the baby, but it IS murder if someone injures you deliberately and you miscarry. Can’t be both things at the same time, now can it?

      Jul 31, 2011 at 10:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steven
      Steven

      No, Darnell. I’m afraid that is, I will quote, “normal.” I was circumcised as a baby and regardless of this fact, I still manage to have a rather prominent and noticeable brown scar encircling my penis. They claim that babies heal so much more efficiently and with minimal to no scarring, but I call BS on that. I have several other defects down there that I assume were caused by it, but I’ll not go into length on those. Suffice it to say I am certainly less than pleased about the cosmetic results, and I would have much preferred that it were never done to me in the first place because there was no ailment. The obstetrician who performed it was a tool and it is my sincere wish that he/she (not sure about sex) suffers some hefty misfortune later on down the road. Considering the emotional distress that learning about my induced state caused me, it would only be fair compensation.

      In regards to what B wrote and quoted…

      “There are several possible reasons why circumcision has this effect. The foreskin creates a moist environment in which HIV can survive for longer in contact with the most delicate parts of the penis, and the inner surface of the foreskin contains cells that are especially vulnerable to infection by HIV. A study of Ugandan men before and after circumcision concluded that observed decreases in anaerobic bacteria may play a role in reducing the risk of HIV acquisition.12 Removing the foreskin also means that the skin on the head of the penis tends to become tougher and more resistant to infection. In addition, any small tears in the foreskin that occur during sex make it much easier for the virus to enter the body.”

      Then please tell me how you would explain these? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030500357_pf.html and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20309013. Both are part of a study that contradicts and potentially discredits the theory that those cells are as vulnerable as claimed to be. It even mentions a genetic component, that some individuals may have weaker cell activity than others and they could exploit this for a new method of prevention. Sounds like a much better idea than circumcision to me. Furthermore, while this is not the point of my post, I’d like to make a jab at the comment concerning skin tears. And the tight skin of an erect circumcised penis won’t make any abrasions more likely to cause micro tears or friction burns? Please, give me a break.

      Look, if circumcision helped as much as it is often touted to, then it would follow that the United States of America should be experiencing a lower rate of HIV transmission than it currently is, due to the fact that circumcision caught on there. This is not the reality of the situation.

      http://data.unaids.org/pub/FactSheet/2009/20091124_FS_global_en.pdf

      Neither is it the real world reality of what is going on in Africa. More recent data indicates that circumcision is failing in the intended goal of reducing transmission, and I am not making this up. You can simply see for yourself. They have other statistics demonstrating the same thing.

      http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR202/FR202.pdf

      “As discussed in Chapter 12, male circumcision is considered to have a protective effect for HIV infection, in part because of physiological differences that increase the susceptibility to HIV infection among uncircumcised men. As Table 14.10 shows, the relationship between HIV prevalence and circumcision status is not in the expected direction. Circumcised men have a slightly higher HIV infection rate than men who are not circumcised (22 percent compared with 20 percent). It is worth noting that the relationship between male circumcision and HIV infection may be confounded by the fact that the circumcision may not involve the full removal of the foreskin, which provides partial protection. As is the case with other findings, additional analysis is needed to determine if this lack of a relationship between male circumcision and HIV infection is a result of confounding factors or represents the true situation.”

      Please, let preventative (key word there, I am not saying medical) circumcision die. It is an archaic practice that serves no purpose nowadays beyond a psychological one. Can you guess what that is? Comforting already circumcised men. Placating culture. Titillating notions of parental authority/entitlement and, in a twisted mockery of logic that misses the point, “choice.” …Let me just say, that it is not the choice of the one who is going to be affected by a procedure of dubious worth, and that is the big problem here.

      In closing, I would like to make a shout out to the especially arrogant individuals on here such as “cutit” who boldly assert that circumcised men don’t complain. Guess what? You’re talking out of your lower hole. I am a circumcised man. I am complaining. And it’s not only me, but the people on this website too. http://foreskin-restoration.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=61 Take a good while to read through some of those posts. After you have done so, does it really seem all that different from the psychological harms that female circumcision can inflict? If anybody still thinks that they are so radically different after reading personal accounts to the contrary, where emotional expression even verges on suicidal thought, well… I don’t know what to say.

      Aug 2, 2011 at 9:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      Steven – I too was circumcised as a child – I wouldn’t be too hard on the physician that performed it (depending on how old you are) I’m 50 and everyone had it done then. It was just thought “for the best.” I guarantee if I had a son, he WOULD NOT be circumcised.

      Interestingly, Poland is an extremely Catholic country and yet their boys are almost never circumcised so I would think the “religious” argument (from the judge here) wouldn’t hold water. Not only that, it is NOT the state that makes all medical decisions, it is the parents or the individual. Some parents do not immunize their children and up to the point the child’s life is in danger, medical treatment can be alternative or withheld, depending on the parent’s point of view. I used to know quite a few Christian Scientists who never went to the doctor. To some, I know this will seem foolish, but if you really start to dig into the profit motive of Western medicine and research drugs and procedures, it is hardly ‘pure’. Mostly, I think people can agree it is great for acute conditions, like if you’re in a car accident or the like. Ongoing, chronic conditions, probably there are mixed reviews on all forms of treatment, since so much of it depends on the patient’s own body and genetics.

      One last remark – as to a boy “being born that way” (with a foreskin) – we also have an appendix which seems to serve no useful purpose. A foreskin does seem to have a purpose though if nothing else but increased sexual pleasure…. :)

      Aug 3, 2011 at 8:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     




    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.