Was googling around and found this

[Fi.]

http://www.askmen.com/sports/health/15_mens_health.html

I thought it was pretty good myself.

[rootzdawta]

"One complaint about circumcision is that infants have no choice in the matter. The surgery is the first major decision parents make for their sons -- involving the look and performance of the most outward symbol of what will make them men."

Unfortunately, most people don't get that this decision is not ours to make. Let a man (when he's a man) make decisions about that symbol.

I'm not sure if I buy that the penis is the most outward symbol of what makes a man a man--men don't walk around with their penises out for everyone to see so how is that the most outward symbol?

Good article though!

[Fi.]

While a penis doesn't make the man, I would say it's quite important even if only in terms of the way the man feels about himself.

The article is right in the sense that it does involve the look and performance.

[rootzdawta]

Originally Posted by Fi.

While a penis doesn't make the man, I would say it's quite important even if only in terms of the way the man feels about himself.

ITA.

[calngavinsmom]

I liked it...Thanks for posting

Tara

:

[njeb]

I read the article and I didn't like it myself. I thought it was pro-circ.

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by njeb

I read the article and I didn't like it myself. I thought it was pro-circ.

I think the writer was trying very hard to be neutral but much of his information was outdated and archaic and some just was not well researched. For the most part though, I don't think you can assign an article on circumcision to a Jewish writer and expect a non-biased result.



Frank

[Quirky]

I guess it's all in how you read it - I didn't find it to be pro-circ. I also don't see this alleged "Jewish" bias. The guy is quoting George Denniston, but not Edgar Schoen or Thomas Wiswell - where are the inflammatory pro-circ statements? He doesn't mention HIV, for example.

He has to do the journalistic "balance" thing - that's what journalists do. But look how much space he gives to the pleasure issue vs. the dissenting view:

So what goes missing during circumcision? Excised is about half the penile skin that grows to a postcard-size sheath in adults. Also removed is the mucosa -- the foreskin's supple underside that shields the head while producing an odorous, and possibly antibacterial, secretion called smegma (yes, that odor is actually natural).

What is also lost, insist the anti-circumcisionists, is a significant amount of sexual sensitivity. In 1987, a Canadian researcher found 12 ridged bands inside the tip of the foreskin, dense with specialized nerve endings akin to those found on the ends of fingertips.

The glans (head of the penis) has similar receptors along the corona, or edge, though the head itself has poor sensitivity. During intercourse or masturbation, the bands touch the corona, sparking receptors on both surfaces.

The entire penis is designed as a sensory platform for sexual pleasure, just as the vulva is in females. Just as you can't draw the exact line where the G-spot is in women, I don't think it's possible to point to one portion of the penis and claim it's more important than the rest.

Some urologists, however, report otherwise. "We've done hundreds of circumcisions on adult men over the past 20 years and never had one complaint about lack of sensitivity," says Baylor College of Medicine's Larry Lipshultz, M.D.

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by Quirky

He has to do the journalistic "balance" thing - that's what journalists do. But look how much space he gives to the pleasure issue vs. the dissenting view:

When reporting news, yes, a balance does have to be observed but this was not a news item. This was an op-ed item. Would he maintain this same journalistic balance if writing about FGM? Why would there be any difference? Why did he address the Jewish but not the Christian view? I realize that he was trying to offer a very balanced opinion but why should the opinion of male circumcision be balanced when few if any journalists in America would try to offer a balanced view of female circumcision? The not so subtle message here is that a man has no rights to his whole body and those rights are given over to the parents. He makes an attempt to show both sides to educate but why should the decision be given over to someone who has no medical background what so ever? Some one who doesn't know that they could be killing their child with the ignorance fostered by the medical profession?

Unfortunately, this issue is very polarizing and I don't really think there is a true neutral position. Instead of these confusing writings, I think it's better to just state your views and let the chips fall where they may. This kind of article is more deceptive than anything else and does nothing more than make people feel comfortable with their decision whatever it is. It's enabling of either side and simply says "There is no wrong choice." For me, those are very hated words because there is a very, very wrong choice.




Frank