Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  snip snap

Lloyd Schofield Wants San Francisco To Ban All Male Circumcision. HIV Heckler? Or Human Rights Hero?

Lloyd Schofield, a San Francisco retiree, say he’s trying to get enough signatures (some 7,000) to place on the November ballot a measure that would ban male circumcision in the city. Calling himself an “intactivist,” Schofield wants to protect baby boys “just as females are protected from having a drop of blood drawn from their genitals.” But what about all those African studies claiming circumcision has health benefits like halving the risk of transmitting HIV and other STDs? Well, there are studies that say men in the Western world won’t benefit, because so many men are already circumcised that the introduction of the surgery won’t have such a tidal influence. But hey, here’s another argument that says Schofield needs to shut up and go away. His bill, which would slap up to a $1,000 fine and up to one year in jail on anyone who performs a circumcision on a man younger than 18.

By:           JD
On:           Feb 22, 2011
Tagged: , , , , , , ,

  • 53 Comments
    • Liz
      Liz

      The chance to get HIV in the U.S. is six times higher than in Sweden and boys don’t get cut in Sweden.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 3:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • greenmanTN
      greenmanTN

      I agree with him. I don’t think boys should be circumsized for ANY reason, including religion, other than immediate medical necessity. If, as an adult, that boy later wants to be circumsized for whatever reason he can give his informed consent for the procedure. Some possible future advantage against contracting HIV is no excuse for permanently altering a person’s body without their permission. AIDS prevention can be taught but surgery is permanent.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 3:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AJD
      AJD

      I still have yet to see a valid explanation for the fact that developed countries where circumcision is not the norm (i.e. European countries, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Canada) universally have lower rates of HIV infection than the United States, where it is the norm.

      I’m not trying to suggest that being uncut reduces one’s risk of infection, but it’s obvious that those countries are doing something that doesn’t involve the permanent surgical removal of a body part without a child’s consent.

      It’s probably because those countries tend to have comprehensive sex education that teaches people to use condoms, which we’re far too lazy and/or puritanical to do here in the United States.

      If you buy the bullshit notion that circumcision will lead to lower HIV infection rates, then try this as an experiment: Have sex exclusively with circumcised men and (if you’re a guy) get cut as well, and never use condoms. If all who participate in this study report back in three years and are still HIV-negative, then we can talk.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 3:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Enron
      Enron

      The fact is, it feels so much better with the skin especially with pre cum.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 3:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ChiGuy76
      ChiGuy76

      @greenmanTN: I must respectfully disagree with you. I am circumsized and I am grateful that my parents had it done. If ever I had a son, I would make sure that he too is circumsized. Plus, parents permanently alter their children’s bodies all the time in the name of health or culture or religion without the child’s permission. Throughout the developed world, parents innoculate their newborns, force their children to wear glasses and/or contacts, and if necessary braces for their teeth. In many Latin cultures, parents pierce infant girls’ ears days after birth as part of the tradition of having a girl. In Muslim majority countries, Christians tatoo their children to prevent later in life forced conversions (Islam forbids tatoos and will not allow converts who have them).

      Believe it or not, I have heard far too many arguments in favor of circumcision from men who are uncut. One of the consistent arguments that I have personally heard made by uncircumsized men is that they do not want their sons to go through the same developmental physical pain as they did growing up. Not to mention several expectant mothers who’ve told me that not circumsizing their sons “would force them to be way too intimate with their sons’ privates.”

      However, this law being proposed is quite ridiculous. Let’s say it does pass. So now, expectant parents who want their sons circumsized will just go to the suburban hospitals to give birth. Or wait a few days and then travel to a suburban hospital and have it done then. Does San Francisco plan on erecting a wall around it’s borders with check points to examine little boys as they come back and forth with their parents? How could they enforce this law to begin with?

      The bottom line is that male circumcision is up to the parents of the boy. They alone should make this decision. Not the government and not overzealous activists (on either side).

      Feb 22, 2011 at 3:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      I’m in Canada. I was circumcised. And I don’t think that the rate is that much lower than the U.S.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 4:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Scott
      Scott

      I would vote against this law. I don’t know why. I knew a 6-year old boy who was circumcised for medical reasons and it was very painful for him. I was circumcised as an infant so I don’t remember it. If scientific research found circumcision to be worthless I still wouldn’t vote for the law. I would vote to ban parents from operating on the genitals of children born intersexed.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 4:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • greenmanTN
      greenmanTN

      @ChiGuy76: Thank you for being respectful. We’re going to have to agree to disagree though.

      I too am circumsized and don’t feel my parents or any parents had/have the right to alter another person’s body without their consent. Perhaps it’s particular to my case but I’ve noticed that the penises of my uncircumsized sexual partners are substantially more sensitive and responsive than circumsized penises, including my own. There are nerve endings in the foreskin which are lost. The foreskin keeps the glans covered so the skin there doesn’t become more coarse and less sensitive.

      Anyone uncircumzized who wishes to be circumsized can schedule that procedure anytime they want. There’s a phrase that describes the situation for men who wish they hadn’t been circumsized: out of luck.

      Ear-piercing and tattoos for a child, while also without the child’s consent, are nowhere near the same thing as removing flesh. Eyeglasses and contacts fall firmly under medical necessity, not to mention both can be removed.

      I’m not suggesting that parents who have their children are abusive, at least not deliberately, but there ARE laws which limit and prevent what a parent can and cannot do to their child. It may be “your” child but that child’s body is and remains its own, not a possession you can alter or damage as you see fit.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 4:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • bi86
      bi86

      @ ChiGuy76 – “The bottom line is that male circumcision is up to the parents of the boy. They alone should make this decision. Not the government and not overzealous activists (on either side).”

      Under your logic female circumcisions should be allowed then. Which ironically enough I found studies in the middle east where circumcised women had lower rate on infections of HIV. I don’t really trust the studies… but if it’s a parent right to choose and can point at any study they want to justify it, even if there are multiple studies showing it won’t make a difference to the child in the USA other then taking away up to 75% of there feeling down there. (5o% from lack of foreskin and another 50% from numbness from exposure. I know women is up to 90% or more… but at those percentages… it sucks for any gender to have it done.)

      From my personal experience being natural is rather great. Masturbation is easy as heck which is why circumcision was done for “medical” reasons in the first place. Because as we all know masturbation can cause you to go blind, get polio AND WORSE OF ALL TURN YOU INTO A HOMOSEXUAL! Go ahead and google search it, it’s not that hard to find.

      My fiancé who is trans(MTF) and intersexed, circumcision was horrible for her. Her surgery won’t nearly be as good as it could have been with the foreskin to use. We’re both of the option that the doctor actually cut off “extra” bits to make her look more male down there, or the doctor fucked up. At least she still have something down there. 1 in a million circumcisions end with having to amputate something rather special to most men. Don’t know about you… but I won’t take the risk for no reduction in HIV infections if you’re smart enough to use a condom. Also the numbness part from above… is thought to cause a higher rate of erectile dysfunction in males.

      There has also been studies to show circumcision increases your risk of HIV infections if you’re a bottoming gay man, because the circumcised top will have rougher sex because of the lack of feeling down there and cause more cuts, which is also true with women vaginally. Which brings into question if there is any benefit at all.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 5:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Qjersey
      Qjersey

      A dick is a dick, get over it.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 5:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr. Enemabag Jones
      Mr. Enemabag Jones

      Studies have shown the female circumciosn also lowers HIV rates at the same level as male circ. When do we start cutting new born girls?

      Feb 22, 2011 at 5:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • john
      john

      I’ll admit, I’m biased in that I’m Jewish, but not many of the studies quoted above yielded results, either for or against circumcision, that were anywhere near unanimously accepted by the medical community. Until a consensus is reached in the medical community about the effects of circumcision, I don’t think a law should be passed that infringes on such an important religious rite.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 5:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • john
      john

      What I mean to say is that there are equal numbers of studies that indicated positive, negative and lack of effect from male circumcision.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 5:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tarxien
      tarxien

      South Africa has an extremely high rate of circumcision for traditional reasons, and, I believe, the highest incidence of HIV infection in the world. So not working there!
      And there is a very high death rate in young men from circumcision also.
      Ultimately this should be a decision made by the individual as an adult. Not imposed by parents for their own selfish agendas. It’s hardly comparable with ear piercing!

      Feb 22, 2011 at 6:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Zhenya
      Zhenya

      Hardly comparable to an ear piercing, definitely, but also hardly comparable to female circumcision, the POINT of which is to deny the female pleasure. As for deciding when you’re an adult, very few of us would choose to do something so painful once our pleasure and pain receptors develop during our critical period. The HIV transmission debate aside, doing it to a newborn, at least, causes minimal pain, and may have enormous benefits.

      Also, citing countries with lower rates of circumcised men and their comparative HIV statistics is in no way an argument for OR against circumcision, as there are hundreds of factors governing HIV-transmission, and nobody on either side (for or against newborn circumcision) would presume to account for different countries’ STD rates with that information alone. Unless you know of two countries where sexual behavior/practices are identical and the only determinant factor is the circumcision rate, comparison on that basis alone has absolutely no validity.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 7:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr. Enemabag Jones
      Mr. Enemabag Jones

      @Zhenya:

      but also hardly comparable to female circumcision, the POINT of which is to deny the female pleasure.

      If studies claiming lower infection rates with male circ are trotted out to defend circumcision, then shouldn’t the same types of studies be trotted out defending female circ? Facts are facts.

      very few of us would choose to do something so painful once our pleasure and pain receptors develop during our critical period.

      Oh. So get those boys when they’re young, and can’t decide for themselves, correct?

      The HIV transmission debate aside, doing it to a newborn, at least, causes minimal pain, and may have enormous benefits.

      Minimal? Adults are given either a local, or general anesthetic during their surgery. Newborns are given nothing. If they feel “minimal” pain, then why do they scream, cry and shriek during the surgery? One nurse told a story about a boy who screamed until he passed out. It took almost 30 minutes to revive the boy back into consciousness.

      Do yourself a favour; google “circumstraint” and see what a newborn has to deal with during a circumcision.

      and nobody on either side (for or against newborn circumcision) would presume to account for different countries’ STD rates with that information alone.

      So why are sub-Saharan studies being promoted in America?

      Feb 22, 2011 at 8:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Seriously
      Seriously

      This is such a stupid debate. 1. A baby does not remember being circumcised, no matter what anybody claims. 2. As a cut man I am still more than able to enjoy genital stimulation, thank you very much, so stop pretending that I don’t. 3. Both the cut penis and the uncut penis are beautiful. If you have a preference for one or the other, that’s fine. It doesn’t make either better.

      Why we have so many ‘radicals’ on either side of this issue explains why this world is so messed up … we focus on the stupidest things to get worked up about.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 9:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • KCD
      KCD

      Religious freedom does not mean getting to do whatever one wants to their baby. Would we let people hit their babies, even as part of some religious exercise? Of course not; it would be barbaric. Does it matter if the baby would remember the pain of getting hit? No. It doesn’t matter. If you hit a baby you go to jail. If the parent is responsible the baby gets taken away from them. This law would be a slap on the wrist compared to other laws inhibiting abuse of infants.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 9:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jak
      jak

      Thank god, people are waking up to this nightmare. Routine circumcision on boys is a barbaric practice that started in recent times back in the Victorian era to discourage masturbation. Men are left with reduced sensitivity, hardening of the glans, and an ugly scar for life – not to mention the psychological effects. HIV protection should be accomplished with condoms not genital mutilation.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 10:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael
      Michael

      Routine infant male circumcision is a disgusting practice. Boys are not born with extra parts. The foreskin is NOT a birth defect. I am so proud of Lloyd! I hope the ban on circumcision passes in San Francisco, then the rest of the United States needs to follow suit. If a boy is born from a Jewish mother, he’s a Jew…period. You don’t need to alter a boys penis to make him Jewish. Look up Brit Shalom, there are alternatives to the cutting of children.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 10:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nathan
      Nathan

      People have the right to freedom of religion because of the first amendment however this right is not absolute, this right ends where another person’s body or property begins. This is quite evident by the presence of a federal law which forbids parents from performing even the most minor forms of female genital mutilation such as those which are the equivalent to a male circumcision and those which are less than a male circumcision in terms of physical damage done to the body of the one being circumcised. Therefore since this proposed change to the laws of San Francisco to prohibit all non-therapeutic circumcisions is constitutionally sound I support Lloyd Schofield and the ban as it protects the right of the minor to make an informed decision if they wish to be circumcised or not when they come of age, as the decision can only be made once and it should be the owner of the foreskin who decides unless there is a pressing medical need such as gangrene, cancer, frostbite etc. which warrants a circumcision.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 10:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pete n SFO
      Pete n SFO

      yes, it’s the norm in the States, but just pause for a moment and consider… shouldn’t it really be a child’s choice whether or not their GENITALIA is permanently altered with no compelling reason to do so? I mean really???

      Even Queety is dismissive of this guy- but the thing is… he is ABSOLUTELY correct. No child should have the decision taken from him.

      It’s actually very simple; when of legal age, every child can be offered the choice. Problem solved, right?

      Feb 23, 2011 at 1:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      All the men in my family over ~40 y/o are “cut” and none for religious reasons. That apparently was the standard practice then, and parents werent even consulted or made aware of this being optional.

      Times have changed, but of the guys I know my age, born mid-late 80s, about 60% are cut.

      I believe that the procedure should require personal consent, due to risks, unless there are medical reasons… The research still doesn’t seem to prove the pros outweigh the cons.

      Feb 23, 2011 at 2:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Riley
      Riley

      @AJD:

      Actually, your not quite correct. Circumcision was standard in Canada until about 15 years ago, so the boys who would not have been circumcised are not likely having sex yet.

      And, as a personal note, I was circumcised when born, and am glad that I am. It is not a surgery I would have wanted to deal with as an adult.

      Additionally, there are numerous hygienic reasons for circumcision.

      While I agree with you that sex education is probably the biggest reason for lower HIV rates in other countries than the US, your sarcastic recommendation for cut men to have only unprotected sex to see if they don’t become HIV positive is stupid and insulting.

      No study is suggesting that cut men WON’T contract HIV. But they do show that a circumcised man who has an encounter with an HIV positive partner has a LOWER risk of contracting HIV. Similarly to condoms, it is not a GUARANTEE of risk free sex. Just a better chance. And in my opinion, anything that lowers the risk factor (condoms included) is a good thing.

      Feb 23, 2011 at 3:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nathan
      Nathan

      @Riley: Not all research on circumcision and HIV has found circumcision to provide protection some research has found it provides no protection and some have found it increases the rate at which men contract HIV. One study (which means its far from conclusive) found that male circumcision increases a woman’s risk of contracting HIV by 54% which when coupled with the fact women are more likely to get HIV it could easily not only nullify any protection circumcision gives society but also result in more people becoming infected.

      Feb 23, 2011 at 5:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Harbo
      Harbo

      I am not circumcised and have never had a problem. In fact, I’m grateful. Most of my partners who are circumcised (and there have been many) envy me. My sensitivity level is great. and I have remained HIV negative. Just keep it clean and use protection. Circumcision is a barbaric and cruel practice.

      Feb 23, 2011 at 8:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      Soooo, this is what is important and should be fought for right now? Give me a break. I’ve had two friends who got circumcized later in life, one at 18 and one at 22 and neither of them said it made a big difference.

      This guy reminds me of those aging guys in their drum circles screaming because their fathers didn’t hug them enough. I guess he needed one more thing to be angry at his parents about.

      I know I’m really brushing it off, but this is just silly.

      Oh, and for all the anti-circumcisn folks coming in here saying things like “One study found that circumcism increases your risk of HIV…please link to these supposed studies, I could care less if I was circumcised or not, but if you’re going to try to back up your argument with a study, it shouldn’t be a problem for you to actually find it now should it?. (Eye Roll)

      Feb 23, 2011 at 9:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      On my list of concerns about children around the world is hunger, poverty, access to medical care and education. Once I conquer those ones, I might get to circumcision, but probably not in my lifetime.

      Feb 23, 2011 at 10:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • greenmanTN
      greenmanTN

      Ah, the old “people are starving, so who gives a shit?” argument.

      Following that logic ANYTHING can be minimized. There are BABIES starving in Africa and you’re worried about gays’ right to MARRY?! People in Wisconsin are protesting over bargaining rights while people are DYING!

      See how that works? If every issue were weighed by that scale nothing would get done.

      I’m not that over-the-top about it. It’s too late for me, unlike uncircumsized men who can choose to have it done if they want. I just don’t think anyone has the right to alter someone else’s body without their permission, particularly for religious or cultural reasons. If uncircumsized boys felt uncomfortable in gym class that’s due to the prevalence of the practice, not because there was anything actually wrong with them. Arguing whether there is a higher or lower risk of HIV is beside the point. That’s an after-the-fact justification for a procedure that wasn’t done for that reason, a debatable advantage only discovered in retrospect. No matter what justifications or excuses you use, there’s no way to escape the fact that infant circumcision is removing part of someone’s genitals without their consent.

      Feb 23, 2011 at 12:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      Ah, the old “people are starving, so who gives a shit?” argument.

      Putting words in my mouth, aren’t you. That wasn’t my argument at all. I’m talking about my own principle priorities. See how that works?

      Feb 23, 2011 at 1:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • greenmanTN
      greenmanTN

      @Soupy: No, I don’t really think I put words in your mouth at all. It’s your opinion that only after the problems of world hunger, poverty, and health care are done and dusted should anyone worry their beautiful mind about the practice of removing flesh from infants’ genitals without their consent. Fine. Is that before or after “the heartbreak of psoriasis” and the “crippling social stigma of dandruff” have been addressed?

      Feb 23, 2011 at 1:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      I’d put it above that, but below cranial-facial disformities and common diseases that can be treated with the right resources. I guess I can put words in your mouth and claim that infant circumcision is the worst thing happening to children in the world. So you have your own priorities.

      Feb 23, 2011 at 2:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr. Enemabag Jones
      Mr. Enemabag Jones

      @Soupy:

      I’d put it above that, but below cranial-facial disformities and common diseases that can be treated with the right resources.

      So what exactly are you doing to combat these situations you feel are more important, Soupy? If nothing, then you’re just blowing smoke.

      Feb 23, 2011 at 5:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      Let’s see, I took my father’s estate of liquid assets and put it into planned giving for doctors without borders and CARE. I’ve been to Africa with my friend who is in the U.N relief program and done the work on the ground. As a matter of fact, I’ve paid for several operations myself out of my own income. Any more questions, Enema? Or are you just paying for your own enemas?

      Feb 23, 2011 at 6:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr. Enemabag Jones
      Mr. Enemabag Jones

      @Cam:

      please link to these supposed studies

      Here are some rebuttals to these studies, Cam. See if you can stop rolling your eyes long enough to actually read them:

      http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA-garenne.html

      And just to give you something to think about, Cam, Pfizer’s own annual reposts have shown American males between the ages of 25 and 75 use more Viagra than the next 10 countries where Viagra is sold, combined.

      Considering the next 10 countries are all countries with lower rates of circumcision than America, one must wonder what is causing all these cut American men to gobble Viagra like it’s Pez.

      Feb 23, 2011 at 6:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr. Enemabag Jones
      Mr. Enemabag Jones

      @Cam:

      please link to these supposed studies

      I posted a link to a page with rebuttals of these studies, Cam, but Queerty is moderating my comment. Hopefully it will show up sometime.

      Feb 23, 2011 at 6:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr. Enemabag Jones
      Mr. Enemabag Jones

      @Soupy:

      CoughbullshitCough.

      Online, Soupy, people can be anything. I can be Mr. Enemabag Jones, and you can be an humanitarian. But that doesn’t mean we really are. I haven’t seen anything in your comments here on Queerty, to indicate you would watch a commercial for Christian Children’s Fund, so much as spend money to help children.

      Feb 23, 2011 at 6:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      No, I have been careful not to contribute to a fund that is dependent upon the teaching of “christians”. I haven’t seen anything on here that would indicate that you care about more than yourself, or pretend to, so what should I assume. That you are an enemabag?

      Feb 23, 2011 at 7:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr. Enemabag Jones
      Mr. Enemabag Jones

      @Soupy:

      I haven’t seen anything on here that would indicate that you care about more than yourself,

      Obviously you haven’t read the comments here.

      or pretend to,

      So are you saying you were pretending?

      so what should I assume. That you are an enemabag?

      Or just not as good a liar as you?

      BTW–disformities isn’t a real word. Someone who donates money to orgs that provide facial surgeries to children in third world countries, really should be aware of that.

      Feb 23, 2011 at 7:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      I will trade tax records with you any day. And you can talk to my old college friend Joanna Kerr, who is the chief executive of action aid in Africa. I have read the comments here. Since you impugn mine, why would I believe anything that you say? Feel free to contact me with anything that you have done for children. I don’t think that my quick misspelling of deformities has anything to do with what I have done personally. So are you willing to post it all here publicly?

      Feb 23, 2011 at 7:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr. Enemabag Jones
      Mr. Enemabag Jones

      @Soupy:

      I will trade tax records with you any day.

      Ah. So you didn’t do it out the goodness of your heart, or concern for children. You needed a tax deduction.

      Since you impugn mine, why would I believe anything that you say?

      Because I’m not self-aggrandizing.

      So are you willing to post it all here publicly?

      What I’m willing to post here is a picture of a newborn, whom doctors had to remove all the skin from his naval to his thighs, because of gangrene brought on by a botched circumcision.

      Since you’re so concerned with children, and deformities, maybe after seeing that picture you won’t be so quick to dismiss forced circumcision on newborn males, as beneath your hierarchy of important medical situations to remedy.

      Feb 23, 2011 at 8:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      You asked me what I was doing about child hunger, poverty, education, health, and I told you. When I provide that information, you dispute and mock it. I guess it’s only fair that I ask what charitable activities that you engage in. I promise that I won’t mock and dispute them. I’ll gladly cheer you on. There’s a difference there.

      I guess that I will post a picture of a child’s swollen belly, dying from malnutrition, so that you will stop looking at his penis.

      Feb 23, 2011 at 9:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      Gee, that’s strange. You asked me what I do about the issues that I’m concerned with, in a particularly offensive manner, and when I answer you, you mock and dispute it, demanding proof. Can you tell me what you are doing about infant circumcision? Contributing in any way? Stepping in front of the knife?

      Feb 23, 2011 at 9:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      Perhaps if I post for you a picture of a child’s belly distended from malnutrition, you can tell us how his genitalia will surely kill him.

      Feb 23, 2011 at 9:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr. Enemabag Jones
      Mr. Enemabag Jones

      @Soupy:

      demanding proof

      I don’t recall “demanding” proof of you, of anything you claim to have participated in. Your conceit simply causes you to talk about yourself.

      Can you tell me what you are doing about infant circumcision?

      I could, but I’m not so self-important as to think my contributions to any cause, are any more important than anyone else’s.

      Perhaps if I post for you a picture of a child’s belly distended from malnutrition, you can tell us how his genitalia will surely kill him.

      Children starve because their parents haven’t enough food to feed them, not because their parents wantonly refuse to give them food. The newborn I mentioned was purposely circumcised, without his knowledge, nor consent, causing him a lifetime of pain, and suffering. Which do you think is more barbaric?

      That boy must now go through a lifetime of painful surgeries, skin grafts and rehabilitation, not to mention a now deformed, and quite possible non-functioning body part, all because of a societal expectation that boys be circumcised.

      That you would infer that certain children’s suffering, is more important than that of others, demonstrates your obvious smug world view.

      And by the way; you don’t have to go half-way around the world to find children suffering from malnutrition, or facial deformities. You can find then right in your own city. But then again, nothing says you care, more than helping little brown babies, right Soupy?

      Feb 23, 2011 at 10:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      So what exactly are you doing to combat these situations you feel are more important, Soupy? If nothing, then you’re just blowing smoke.

      What was that? Were you just blowing smoke? Did I mention where those malnourished children were? Your assumption about “little brown babies” is troubling and racist.

      Feb 23, 2011 at 10:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TLCTugger
      TLCTugger

      No national medical association on earth (not even Israel’s) endorses routine circumcision. The most recently updated policy (Holland’s) reflects all the latest African research.

      “Doctors, actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications.”

      -Royal Dutch Medical Association 2010

      They also say there is actually a good case to make it illegal.

      Feb 24, 2011 at 1:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TLCTugger
      TLCTugger

      Just Google Circumcision Damage (on an empty stomach). You’ll see the array of haphazard outcomes that occur when we try to do cosmetic surgery on a tiny infant. Much of the damage doesn’t manifest until puberty. A 2010 study by Fletcher found that 1/3 to 1/2 of adults cut in infancy had unintended effects.

      Hundreds of thousands of men are enduring a tedious multi-year process of non-surgical foreskin restoration to undo just some of circumcision’s damage.

      Foreskin feels REALLY good. HIS body, HIS decision.

      Feb 24, 2011 at 1:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lamar
      Lamar

      The argument that a lot of cut guys seem to use, the “Well I had it done when I was an infant and it hasn’t seriously affected me” isn’t a strong argument. The reason for this is that some of the thousands of nerve endings that their penis should have are missing so consequently when they have sex they think that that’s all their is, there is nothing better. Obviously, however that isn’t true.

      The argument that it is required by certain religions like Judaism and Islam isn’t strong either. If I decided to follow a religion in which I was required to sacrifice animals in my backyard would I be allowed to – for religious freedom. Religious freedom should end when your freedom encroaches on the life of another entity.

      The only reason male circumcision is tolerated in the US and other countries is because this barbaric practice has existed for generations and over time people have become desensitized to this evil. This is also the reason that every single from of female circumcision (even the types comparable to male circumcision)are banned and why it is called female genital mutilation, people are not desensitized to that form of barbarism

      Feb 24, 2011 at 10:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lamar
      Lamar

      The argument that a lot of cut guys seem to use, the: “Well I had it done when I was an infant and it hasn’t seriously affected me” isn’t a strong argument. The reason for this is that some of the thousands of nerve endings that their peni* should have are missing so consequently when they have sex they think that that’s all their is, there is nothing better. Obviously, however that isn’t true.

      The argument that it is required by certain religions like Judaism and Islam isn’t strong either. If I decided to follow a religion in which I was required to sacrifice animals in my backyard would I be allowed to – for religious freedom. Religious freedom should end when your freedom encroaches on the life of another entity.

      The only reason male circumcision is tolerated in the US and other countries is because this barbaric practice has existed for generations and over time people have become desensitized to this evil. This is also the reason that every single from of female circumcision (even the types comparable to male circumcision)are banned and why it is called female genital mutilation, people are not desensitized to that form of barbarism.

      Feb 24, 2011 at 10:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • greenmanTN
      greenmanTN

      Whatever you are, circumsized or non, is usually what you perceive as “normal” and to you the other looks odd. And a lot of “cut” guys don’t really want to think about it and will even defend the practice because if they don’t then at some point they have to confront the fact that their parents actually TOLD someone to cut part of their dick off! Rather than confront it and maybe get mad at their parents they prefer not to think about it.

      And could we drop the stupid comparisons with world hunger, poverty, or any other great social ill? There’s a HUGE basic difference the two and it’s that fixing poverty takes monumental resources, effort, and action while stopping circumcision requires none. You’re asking people to NOT do something, asking them to leave something ALONE. It takes billions of dollars and thousands of volunteers to feed the poor. NOT picking up a scalpel doesn’t cost anyone anything, other than maybe for education. “How are we going to pay for all these circumcisions we’re not doing?!” doesn’t make a damn bit of sense.

      Feb 24, 2011 at 11:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Freddyeddy
      Freddyeddy

      The African studies showed that men who have unprotected reproductive sex with HIV infected prostitutes, are 60% less likely to become infected if their prepuces are cut off. That’s equal to 60% of the total skin. The other 40% who get circumcised and get HIV anyway, get infected by UTI or any little abrassion on or arround the penis that may get tainted vaginal fluids or menstral blood. These procircs are lying and using scare tactics about how the intact contract HIV by claiming that it’s the cellular structure of the prepuce.
      Infants should not be cut because, like what happened to me and my brothers, when the circumcyst cuts too much off, it caused us pain going through puberty, and too many missing nerves from the excised GEE string or frenulum, along with the amnesia causing sexual trauma/terror can lead to Delayed PTSD, surfacing after puberty, leading to psychological erectile dysfunction, suicidal depression, ADD, ADHD, and even schizophrenia. Ever boy will mature differently and there is no way to tell what is too much skin as an infant. As a result, most cut guys are blissfully ignorant on the proper hygene and care of the prepuce, and will sever the bonds of father/son sex education.

      Most all problems that arise with infant prepuces are guardian caused or iatrogenic.

      Infant circumcision started as one of the results from believing in a false talking masculine heavenly godfather that talked to men who were showing the symptoms of untreated UTI’s, including delerium and paranoid delussions with audio and vissual hallucinations. These UTI’s were most likely cause, like HIV from chimpansees, from having sex with animals as mentioned in the old testiment.

      After years of foreskin restoration, many of us circumcised men have decided that the choise should be for the man, not the parent or medical comunity that have been influenced by religious paranoia. Besides, a healthy well grown and cared for foreskin feels realy good and men can make love to each other naturally by docking as Mother Nature intended. Tight foreskins can easily and freely be releaved with manual tugging and stretching which is discouraged by superstitious ignorant religious parents and “Holy” men.

      Muslims do forced conversions by circumcision, by the way. No wonder so many of them want to commit mass murder/ suicide.

      Feb 26, 2011 at 8:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Meredith
      Meredith

      So your using as the basis for your WHOLE argument against circumcision, rates of AIDS are lower in European countries so gee that must mean that not circumcising your child is better! There’s a lot more to the fact that rates are lower overseas that has nothing to do with circumcising. How about #1 Universal Healthcare, #2 Better sex education, #3 more openess about sexuality leading to safer sex.

      Jun 16, 2011 at 8:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Queerty now requires you to log in to comment

    Please log in to add your comment.

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

  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

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