Mothering Forum banner

1 - 20 of 44 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hey guys, my name is Kashi and I want to weigh in here and say that I am dating (and have dated in the past) an uncircumcised guy. He has never had any health issues because of it, and sexually it makes no difference as far as I can tell. I really can't see any benefits to it. My boyfriend is German, apparently in Europe almost no one is circumcised, and most people consider it cruel, barbaric, and traumatizing for a baby.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
978 Posts
Hi Kashi,

Welcome! You are right - there are absolutely no benefits to circumcision. In fact it is very damaging, removing 75% of the nerves of the penis, which results in a significant decrease in sensitivity as the man ages. It also damages the neural connections between penis and brain, which is why premature ejaculation is so prevalent in North America. There are many women who consider sex with an intact man to be far superior. See www.sexasnatureintendedit.org . Be warned - it is very explicit. You might find the video "The Elephant in the Hospital" quite illuminating, accessible on Youtube or at www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
962 Posts
Welcome. :) Remember your boyfriend is intact not 'uncircumcised', that indicates someone who is simply not done yet. Rather like you would never say that a woman is unmastitmised. Language holds power and you don't want to give society the power that thinks cutting boys is normal.

Circumcision is most certainly cruel, barbaric, and traumatizing for a baby.Firstly because most do not receive adequate pain medication, it's quite hit and miss even when all steps are taken. Secondly it means taking away a body part without that persons consent, a body part he may want. Just as woman we want control over our own bodies men deserve the same respect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
114 Posts
Welcome. :) Remember your boyfriend is intact not 'uncircumcised', that indicates someone who is simply not done yet. Rather like you would never say that a woman is unmastitmised. Language holds power and you don't want to give society the power that thinks cutting boys is normal.
Thank you for highlighting the importance of language. I've always said uncircumcised, but intact sounds much better (for many reasons), so I'm going to use that from now on. Your right, language holds great power!

Most of the men I have been with were intact, and I always enjoyed that. The couple of men that were circumcised often needed extra lube; chafing was a real problem! If I ever have a son he will remain intact too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
978 Posts
Most of the men I have been with were intact, and I always enjoyed that. The couple of men that were circumcised often needed extra lube; chafing was a real problem! If I ever have a son he will remain intact too.
Good for you! I don't think the rate of circumcision is very high in B.C. - likely lower than 10%. It would be even lower if not for that one doctor in Vancouver who aggressively promotes it. No doubt it is easy money for him - and he obviously takes the hippocratic oath, "to do no harm", far too lightly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
114 Posts
Good for you! I don't think the rate of circumcision is very high in B.C. - likely lower than 10%. It would be even lower if not for that one doctor in Vancouver who aggressively promotes it. No doubt it is easy money for him - and he obviously takes the hippocratic oath, "to do no harm", far too lightly.
I haven't heard about that Vancouver doctor, that's horrible! I agree, he does take his oath way too lightly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
962 Posts
Brian Morris and his mate DR Terry Russel is what pushes Australia's rate up to 12% and makes our State the highest at 20%.
The one good thing here is while the practice came over from the US in the 1960's it dropped like a stone over the 1970's and 1980's. The bad news is my husbands family was here from Europe for two years in the 1960's when he was born, so he is cut, probably without any pain medication at all. :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
978 Posts
I haven't heard about that Vancouver doctor, that's horrible! I agree, he does take his oath way too lightly.
His name is Neil Pollock and I think he has two clinics in Vancouver. I seem to recall him wanting to open one in Victoria also and was met with some opposition by local intactivists. I don't know if it ever did open.

Years ago the Discovery channel had a series on TV called "The sex files" and there was one episode on circumcision. In their effort to maintain "balance" they interviewed doctors who were pro and against. It seems to me that Dr Pollock was the one they interviewed to give the Pro- circumcision side.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
114 Posts
His name is Neil Pollock and I think he has two clinics in Vancouver. I seem to recall him wanting to open one in Victoria also and was met with some opposition by local intactivists. I don't know if it ever did open.

Years ago the Discovery channel had a series on TV called "The sex files" and there was one episode on circumcision. In their effort to maintain "balance" they interviewed doctors who were pro and against. It seems to me that Dr Pollock was the one they interviewed to give the Pro- circumcision side.
Wow, I just checked out his website. There is so much misinformation and fear mongering. It really boils my blood to read that stuff. I don't know how he (and his employees) can say those things in good conscious. I don't understand how someone can argue so hard for something that has been proven to be unnecessary. Or to use age-old arguments that are false or misguided? My gosh. I guess the only bright side here is that people like him seem to be a dying breed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
978 Posts
Wow, I just checked out his website. There is so much misinformation and fear mongering. It really boils my blood to read that stuff. I don't know how he (and his employees) can say those things in good conscious. I don't understand how someone can argue so hard for something that has been proven to be unnecessary. Or to use age-old arguments that are false or misguided? My gosh. I guess the only bright side here is that people like him seem to be a dying breed.
I'm with you - I haven't been on his website - I don't need my blood pressure that high! However, the reason he and others like him spout all that BS is money. Greed overpowers ethics. It is the same with those who sell/trade is freshly severed foreskins with biotech companies. That is a whole other topic but you can bet Dr Pollock is up to his eyeballs in that too - and you know that the parents, nor the baby get a cent. most don't even know!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
114 Posts
I'm with you - I haven't been on his website - I don't need my blood pressure that high! However, the reason he and others like him spout all that BS is money. Greed overpowers ethics. It is the same with those who sell/trade is freshly severed foreskins with biotech companies. That is a whole other topic but you can bet Dr Pollock is up to his eyeballs in that too - and you know that the parents, nor the baby get a cent. most don't even know!
Wow, I didn't even know people sell/trade foreskins to biotech companies. Doing that behind the parent's back seems very unethical to me. It's horrible what some people will do in the name of greed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,192 Posts
Wow, I didn't even know people sell/trade foreskins to biotech companies. Doing that behind the parent's back seems very unethical to me. It's horrible what some people will do in the name of greed.
Doing behind the backs of the boys and men that are being profited off their forcibly removed body parts is horrible. Its not the parents bodies, they have no right to claim offense to how its been used after they rejected the foreskins value without consideration by its actual owner. They do not get to claim offense because they didn't get a slice of the monetary profit, because again, its not THEIR bodies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
114 Posts
Doing behind the backs of the boys and men that are being profited off their forcibly removed body parts is horrible. Its not the parents bodies, they have no right to claim offense to how its been used after they rejected the foreskins value without consideration by its actual owner. They do not get to claim offense because they didn't get a slice of the monetary profit, because again, its not THEIR bodies.
I'm not trying to imply that parents own their son's bodies, or that they have any right to be offended by how the foreskin is used after they authorize the removal of it. That is not my belief nor was it the intention of my response.

However, I do think parents should have all the information before making this huge decision on behalf of their defenceless child. My original thought came from my belief that some parents would be less likely to trust a doctor's recommendation to circumcise if they knew that doctor was profiting off selling the tissue afterwards. I would like to believe hearing that information would at least make some parents pause and hopefully reconsider. I don't believe anyone, parents included, should profit off of selling another human's body part.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
978 Posts
Wow, I didn't even know people sell/trade foreskins to biotech companies. Doing that behind the parent's back seems very unethical to me. It's horrible what some people will do in the name of greed.
I thought I might have a website that described this, but I don't. However here are some of the companies that use "discarded foreskins" in their product(s): SKINMEDICA, APLIGRAPH, TRANSCYTE, CORIELLE and ATCC. The products include Anti-aging cream and reproduced skin for burn victims.

I think that at the very least the baby should be reimbursed a healthy sum. But that is beside the point - he should not be having his foreskin stolen from him in the first place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
962 Posts
I'm not trying to imply that parents own their son's bodies, or that they have any right to be offended by how the foreskin is used after they authorize the removal of it. That is not my belief nor was it the intention of my response.

However, I do think parents should have all the information before making this huge decision on behalf of their defenceless child. My original thought came from my belief that some parents would be less likely to trust a doctor's recommendation to circumcise if they knew that doctor was profiting off selling the tissue afterwards. I would like to believe hearing that information would at least make some parents pause and hopefully reconsider. I don't believe anyone, parents included, should profit off of selling another human's body part.
I agree, it comes full circle back to the doctors. They should have to lay it all out, the procedure, the functions of the foreskin they are removing, what will happen to it, the pain meds used or not used, the risks and the long term side effects, but most people get little to no information. I have heard people say "I wasn't told anything just asked if I wanted it done" as well as some having a form waved under their nose while they were still in recovery from a cesarean, which is terrible as you can't even think clearly at that point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,192 Posts
I'm not trying to imply that parents own their son's bodies, or that they have any right to be offended by how the foreskin is used after they authorize the removal of it. That is not my belief nor was it the intention of my response.

However, I do think parents should have all the information before making this huge decision on behalf of their defenceless child. My original thought came from my belief that some parents would be less likely to trust a doctor's recommendation to circumcise if they knew that doctor was profiting off selling the tissue afterwards. I would like to believe hearing that information would at least make some parents pause and hopefully reconsider. I don't believe anyone, parents included, should profit off of selling another human's body part.
Sorry, I probably over reacted in my response to you. But just earlier in this thread you were involved in the discussion on the importance and power in word use in relation to "uncut" vs "intact". And just like that we need to change the subtle messages we send in the way we talk about all this. We need to remember (because social conditioning makes it so easy to forget) that first and foremost this is an issue of control and choice. That this isn't a parental issue, but a human rights issue.

When your sympathy/ shocked response is directed not to the human who had parts of his body forcibly removed, but instead for the parents of that human- its another micro act of dehumanization, devaluing of that individual.

I only bring it up because its the kind of thing we need to be ultra aware of if we are going to be able to change this kind of thinking in our own communities.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
962 Posts
Just because she didn't mention the person whose foreskin was removed doesn't mean she wasn't also thinking of them. She can't exactly be shocked that the baby wasn't informed his foreskin was going to be sold to a biotech company since babies can't be informed, which is a separate issue of why it's so wrong. We all agree that it should not be a parents right to cut healthy skin off their children. I thought we were discussing the lack of information given to parents and that is just one part of it. If doctors were made to fully inform parents on everything including that it might be sold, I am sure the rate would drop far more quickly than it is now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,192 Posts
Just because she didn't mention the person whose foreskin was removed doesn't mean she wasn't also thinking of them. She can't exactly be shocked that the baby wasn't informed his foreskin was going to be sold to a biotech company since babies can't be informed, which is a separate issue of why it's so wrong. We all agree that it should not be a parents right to cut healthy skin off their children. I thought we were discussing the lack of information given to parents and that is just one part of it. If doctors were made to fully inform parents on everything including that it might be sold, I am sure the rate would drop far more quickly than it is now.
I agree to everything you are saying in terms of tactics of reducing circumcisions through information. But the other side of this is changing the way people think, is changing the way we all speak about this issue. As words have power and send subtle messages of value that we internalize far more easily, and unconsciously than any debate point we can make with a person.

I wasn't speaking to what she was thinking, I was speaking to what she was saying. Just as when she said "uncut" instead of "intact" she wasn't thinking less of intact men. But she does send a powerful message of value in terms of the male body when she uses that word, when anyone does. And its meaning is taking with far more impact.

All I was saying is taking that same discussion from earlier in the thread and expanding it to include our phrases and reactions and how THAT gets interpreted in just the same kind of ways as saying "uncut."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
962 Posts
What I meant was her reply
Wow, I didn't even know people sell/trade foreskins to biotech companies. Doing that behind the parent's back seems very unethical to me. It's horrible what some people will do in the name of greed.
The language we use is important but I don't see anything wrong in her statement there. She was simply responding to new information. It's good to get new members who I feel should be treated gently if they are new to this. You also apologized, so lets put it aside now.
 
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
Top