View Story | 269 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Steny Hoyer = a slam dunk argument for term limits
by jlynne on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 12:36:39 AM PDT
As an aside, I did not want my son circumcised and caught flak from everyone--even the nurse's aides in the hospital. All because I am one of the minority who do not care to circumcise. I can't bein to imagine what kind of ignorance andpressure are at work with intersex children. It makes me want to cry.
My condolences to tvb . . . wish you and others like you had been left intact. Keep speaking out and help the ones yet to be born.
Sometimes a .sig is just a .sig.
by rhubarb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 06:05:40 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
Circumcision also constitutes surgery without consent. I don't understand how it is legal, since supposedly there can be no "proxy informed consent" for non-therapeutic procedures. The AMA and the AAP do not recommend routine infant circumcision and do not consider it a therapeutic procedure. But then, this diary proves that informed consent is not much of a concern for mainstream medicine.
I have never let my schooling interfere with my education. -- Mark Twain
by vinifera on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 07:16:52 AM PDT
Alito. Kennedy. Roberts. Scalia. Thomas. More important than ever: ERA NOW!
by greeseyparrot on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 07:27:21 AM PDT
was to prevent masturbation.
Dodd '08!
by Irrelevant Prolixity on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 09:12:59 AM PDT
by Roosevelt Democrat on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 10:38:52 AM PDT
What changed from a hundred years ago to today?
by Irrelevant Prolixity on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:10:19 PM PDT
Of course that didn't work.
It was suggested that circumcision should be performed at puberty, without anasthetic, and then salt should be rubbed into the wound by parents in order to re-enforce the "lesson".
Circumcison was used as "punishment" for masturbation. Go look up Kellog some time. He didn't just create a bland breakfast cereal. (The cereal, curiously enough, was also created with the goal of elimination masturbation.)
The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!
by Shapeshifter on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 09:54:48 PM PDT
As late as the 1970s, leading American medical textbooks still advocated routine circumcision as a way to prevent masturbation.
M. F. Campbell, "The Male Genital Tract and the Female Urethra," in Urology, eds. M. F. Campbell and J. H. Harrison, vol. 2, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1970),1836.
I thought that rational ended around the turn of the previous century.
by Irrelevant Prolixity on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:20:56 PM PDT
When do I get to vote on your marriage?
by tvb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:16:03 PM PDT
That is horrible.
How "small" is "small" according to these quacks?
"Some people think the president is not bound by the law. Out of respect for their opinions, I'm not going to stand behind my own." Obama, et al
by Dysfraxion on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:39:20 PM PDT
by tvb on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 04:23:14 PM PDT
I just wonder whether the medical community also came up with the hairy palms thing....
by vinifera on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 08:41:12 PM PDT
by greeseyparrot on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:13:04 PM PDT
Don't forget that routine circumcision is actually pretty new. Although it has been practiced probably as long as there was society the US is actually a bit unusual in terms of overall trends. Any sort of argument that circumcision is natural and lack of it is somehow unnatural or dangerous must be viewed in light of the fact that--if i remember correctly--there are more men alive today who are uncircumcised than circumcised.
by Shapeshifter on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 09:38:21 PM PDT
"People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible." --J.R.
by michael1104 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 09:08:28 AM PDT
Don't you think the owner of the penis ought to have a say as to whether part of it is cut away?
by Irrelevant Prolixity on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 09:11:55 AM PDT
by michael1104 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 09:17:15 AM PDT
by Irrelevant Prolixity on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 09:24:40 AM PDT
by Summer F on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 09:48:47 AM PDT
by michael1104 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 10:06:36 AM PDT
There will be coffee and cookies in the Gandhi Room after the revolution -- Unitarian Jihad
by Auntie Mame on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 11:56:28 AM PDT
(And what business do parents have worrying about the details of their kids sex lives?)
by tritium on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:09:26 PM PDT
by Dysfraxion on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:32:43 PM PDT
So I view it as a moral issue to be decided by parents. Male circumcision, based on entirely anecdotal evidence, is like a major body mod (piercings and such) functionally. The "sex correction" surgeries and female circumcision seem more risky and also involve loss of function. No reason why there can't be some sort of advocate assigned to discuss the issue with the parents and doctor so that an informed decision can be made.
Because as I understand it, the surgeries are usually intended for the child's benefit... the idea that if you "correct" something at birth the kid won't have to deal with it. Ugh, I dunno.
by f8free on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:05:12 PM PDT
"In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." MLK, changed to this during the 2008 FISA fight
by bewert on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 11:59:15 AM PDT
by JaneKnowles on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 12:09:36 PM PDT
Anyway, for a fantastic article on all the reasons why we shouldn't be circumsizing boys, here is an extremely well-sourced and researched article from Mothering magazine
Here's an excerpt:
Today the reasons given for circumcision have been updated to play on contemporary fears and anxieties; but one day they, too, will be considered irrational. Now that such current excuses as the claim that this procedure prevents cancer and sexually transmitted diseases have been thoroughly discredited, circumcisers will undoubtedly invent new ones. But if circumcisers were really motivated by purely medical considerations, the procedure would have died out long ago, along with leeching, skull-drilling, and castration. The fact that it has not suggests that the compulsion to circumcise came first, the "reasons," later.
by JaneKnowles on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 12:08:10 PM PDT
by Auntie Mame on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 11:55:29 AM PDT
by JaneKnowles on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 12:10:43 PM PDT
Your decisions may be different than mine. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a major problem with the attitude that everyone has to make the same choices.
by Auntie Mame on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 12:34:12 PM PDT
If he wants to be circumcized, he can make that decision as an adult. There is certainly no urgency in getting it done within days of birth. That is his decision not mine.
by JaneKnowles on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 12:53:31 PM PDT
Amen! I get so tired of people criticizing me for trimming back the labia majoris of my newborn daughter. I have the right to make this sort of decision for my child. I am glad you recognize it.
by Irrelevant Prolixity on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:16:52 PM PDT
by JaneKnowles on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:43:03 PM PDT
My point to the origional poster was that of course people will be telling her to not mutilate her baby's genitals. Any ethical person would.
by Irrelevant Prolixity on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:50:01 PM PDT
by JaneKnowles on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:54:36 PM PDT
I can understand why you'd believe it though. People do strange things.
by Irrelevant Prolixity on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:04:53 PM PDT
by tvb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:56:09 PM PDT
by tvb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 12:18:23 PM PDT
by Auntie Mame on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 12:28:12 PM PDT
by tvb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 12:57:54 PM PDT
BTW, I like your tag line. Seems appropriate at the moment.
by Auntie Mame on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:26:29 PM PDT
No problem.
You changed his sexual functioning for life, possibly changed his brain (via two mechanisms: destructive release of stress hormones during circumsion, the most painful medical procedure that exists, and by possibly destroying neurons that respond to plasurable sensations from the nerve-endings in the foreskin).
You did it for, well, um, not very good reasons, but whatever. I guess if you think the appearance of a boy's genitalia need alteration, that's certainly your choice as a rather ignorant parent.
I hope that in 20 years or so, when he's sexually active, women won't be shocked that his parents had him cut - given that circ rates are falling in the US.
But anyway, nice job.
The right is killing America
by grushka on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:50:48 PM PDT
by Auntie Mame on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:03:20 PM PDT
The facts though, were accurate.
If you have another boy in the future I hope you'll reconsider; and won't fall victim to the "we have to cut off part of his penis so he looks like his brother" argument.
by Irrelevant Prolixity on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:06:35 PM PDT
I do not believe that the PP's facts are accurate. Moreover, I think that all these over-the-top arguments and comparisons with FGM ultimately serve to turn people off. Comes off like PETA, frankly.
by Auntie Mame on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:24:45 PM PDT
Same exact physiology between the forskin and the cliteral hood, as well as the clit itself.
Again, I'm so glad YOU feel comfortable about cutting your baby's body without his consent, for utterly specious reasons.
You're a great parent.
by grushka on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:38:30 PM PDT
by Auntie Mame on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:03:46 PM PDT
Would you be upset if your clitoral hood had been cut away when you were a baby?
by Irrelevant Prolixity on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:09:09 PM PDT
Do you know what "gliding action" refers to?
If not, you are officially ignorant about the foreskin.
All of the above are key elements in sexual pleasure you had cut from your baby boy for NO reason.
He will NEVER know the full range of sexual sensation because of your ignorant decision.
That's your choice, as you said. But I won't stand by here and let you spout your pathetic "arguments" in favor of cutting the healthy genitals of new born boys.
by grushka on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:23:19 PM PDT
Oh.. BTW.. Check this out
http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/sheldon.jpg
Personally, I think that anyone who cuts away part of a boys penis without his permission should have their genitals sliced and diced too.
by Dysfraxion on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:14:31 PM PDT
Circumcision removes a piece of skin almost equivalent to a 3 x 5 index card.
I wonder if "Auntie" would mind if someone removed 3 x 5 inches of skin from her genitals.
It is telling that she refuses to answer such questions.
I look foward to the time when these people will be thrown into jail.
The sad thing is, I bet "Auntie" is pro-choice. Too fucking bad she never allowed her son to have a choice.
"Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity."
George Bernard Shaw
by Dysfraxion on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:31:38 PM PDT
But I hold any parent today - with all the information available - totally responsible for mutilating their child.
And the medical establishment is beyond contempt in this matter.
I look forward to the day I have a son and leave him the way he was born. I also hope some doctor corners me and tries to persuade me to have him cut.
by grushka on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:38:30 PM PDT
by tvb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:42:30 PM PDT
I give parents the benefit of the doubt all the way up to the early 1990s. After that time, any idiot capable of 15 minutes of research would see that circumcision is a horrible human rights violation that has no medical purpose.
by Dysfraxion on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:47:20 PM PDT
Just say NO to BAYH (for VP)! Here's why!
by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 12:06:21 PM PDT
Here's a decent primer on the issue.
Later this year (next month I think) the Women's Law Journal, published by the Cardozo School of Law will be releasing a special intersex issue where this is addressed in more depth.
by tvb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:16:12 PM PDT
I wasn't always that way and used to really harp on the parents but as I've learned more from parents and the lack of choice they were given like not being told the vast majority of IS surgeries are cosmetic and doesn't need to be done, it doesn't make sense. I mostly feel sorry for them now because they didn't take the time and will only need to answer to their child why it was done.
I've also come to the conclusion from talking to parents on both sides of the issue that parents who choose IS surgery for their child probably don't like sex that much. I know it sounds simple minded but I base it upon what they tell me---like hearing an orgasm isn't all it's cracked up to be or hearing how they and their partner hardly ever have sex so they can't understand what the fuss is all about.
by tvb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:39:04 PM PDT
Circumcision is (essentially) an elective, major cosmetic surgery with almost no (or straight-up no) demonstrable benefits and several major drawbacks, plus the chance of death or serious mutiliation thrown in for good measure.
The two are simply non-comparable.
by Shapeshifter on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 09:59:14 PM PDT
The history of circumcision research is filled with stupid studies like this. Remember "it prevents penile cancer?" That study involved older men who were mostly uncircumcised and younger men who were mostly circumcised, and guess what, they did not control for age. Penile cancer occurs mostly after the age of 70, so if you ignore age in that data set, it looks like intact men get more cancer. Again, bunk statistics (and I say this as a biostats person).
In Egypt, where 97% of women are circumcised, over 80% are happy with being circumcised. The doctors and the women there claim that female circumcision prevents cervical cancer and STDs, that it doesn't affect sexual functioning, and that it's necessary because "What man could be attracted to an uncircumcised woman?" Basically we have the same situation here in the US, only with men.
by vinifera on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 10:32:16 AM PDT
The South Africa study is the first to offer a high scientific standard of evidence that circumcision is responsible. The study, by French and South African researchers, recruited young men who were H.I.V.-negative and uncircumcised, as are most men in South Africa. Half were randomly assigned to be circumcised. After adjustment for other factors, circumcision reduced the risk of H.I.V. infection by two-thirds during the 21 months of the study. The difference was so great that the trial was stopped and the other men were immediately offered circumcision. [...snip...] Circumcision is no easy sell, but it is at least widely performed and accepted in Africa. If an AIDS vaccine were suddenly discovered that could prevent 7 out of 10 new infections, the world would be rejoicing. AIDS policy makers should be discussing how to promote circumcision so they can be ready to act immediately if the Kenya and Uganda studies confirm the good news in South Africa.
I think that is pretty convincing, I don't have a problem with not circumcizing, I really don't. I said before, I probably would have prefered it if I was left uncut, but I just don't think it's some barbaric practice, and apparently it has value in very high risk populations for HIV. And I do not condone female circumcision at all, THAT is a cruel practice, and it has no value whatsoever, and they don't do it when girls are newborns, they do it as a rite of passage when they are pre-teens, that is totally different.
by michael1104 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 12:19:23 PM PDT
Summary: Thirty-five articles and a number of abstracts have been published in the medical literature looking at the relationship between male circumcision and HIV infection. Study designs have included geographical analysis, studies of high risk patients, partner studies and random population surveys. Most of the studies have been conducted in Africa. A meta-analysis was performed on the 29 published articles where data were available. When the raw data are combined, a man with a circumcised penis is at greater risk of acquiring and transmitting HIV than a man with a non-circumcised penis (odds ratio (OR)=1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.01-1.12). Based on the studies published to date, recommending routine circumcision as a prophylactic measure to prevent HIV infection in Africa, or elsewhere, is scientifically unfounded.
by JaneKnowles on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 12:34:03 PM PDT
by michael1104 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 12:40:48 PM PDT
If this procedure was done to adult males held in prison camps, you'd better believe it'd be called cruel.
by JaneKnowles on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 12:45:12 PM PDT
by JaneKnowles on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 12:47:37 PM PDT
Some of the parenting boards are downright crazy over this one. This conversation is pretty tame in comparison.
by Auntie Mame on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:35:26 PM PDT
So would it be OK to cut a girl for the same reasons?
Currently, [i][b]any[/b] non-necessary cutting[/i] of a female minor's genitalia is punishable at a federal level with 5 years of imprisonment and a $250K fine.
Do you think that the majority who support this law are like "religious fundamentalists" whom you "can't stand"?
(Oh, and I understand the difference between severe FGM and male circ...but that's not what the law forbids - the law forbids any female genital cutting).
by tritium on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:58:18 PM PDT
by tvb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:05:12 PM PDT
Look here.
female genital cutting is allowed if it is
But perhaps you know much more about the interpretation of the law. 'Necessary' is a malleable criterion.
Thanks for posting this diary, BTW. This is a very ugly subject (your description of reading your medical records made me sick to my stomach). Not to compare the severity of the two practices, but when you described how you felt when you read your records, I recognized the feeling that I felt when I learned about circ - sort of a sick feeling that parts of my body had been secretly cut off.
by tritium on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:20:41 PM PDT
I'm not an attorney and am only going by what I have read regarding the FGM law and the opinions of attorneys I've spoken to about it.
by tvb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:21:11 PM PDT
by Auntie Mame on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:28:02 PM PDT
There would be no crippling effect to trimming a female's labia - in fact, this is now a rather fashionable plastic surgery, even appearing on TV. Google for 'labiaplasty' if you don't believe me.
So I reiterate my question - would it be OK for parents to make the decision to trim their girl's labia? Currently, it will get you five years in jail.
What is really telling is the fact that you avoid this question, after loudly declaiming on the subject of parents' rights. Come on - if you claim that male circ and rhinoplasty are reasonable, why not labiaplasty? Why aren't you standing up for parental freedoms?
by tritium on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:35:54 PM PDT
by JaneKnowles on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:48:20 PM PDT
www.beyondmarriage.org
by decafdyke on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:56:48 PM PDT
Actually, I think that this law will not survive scrutiny because it exceeds federal authority (10th amendment and all that). But I'm not a lawyer.
by tritium on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:57:57 PM PDT
by JaneKnowles on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:50:38 PM PDT
The second is the feeling in the USA that normal males are freaks. It would be like males all of a sudden having to deal with a third female breast. This is one of the dominant motivations for FGM - it is the normal thing to do.
by tritium on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:01:11 PM PDT
Frankly, I'm not "defending" anything other than my right as a parent to make the decisions that I feel are in the best interest of my son. And I'm done with this conversation.
No hard feelings, I hope we can discuss politics rationally if we encounter each other on different threads. But I'm not jumping into this fray again.
by Auntie Mame on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:19:53 PM PDT
Canadian docs reject it as routine also(1996)
Ditto for the docs in Finland(2003)
UK...in deep discussion about it.
United States...doesn't routinely recommend but allows it for the benefit of the parents and only at their request.
Information at Cirp
by tvb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:32:15 PM PDT
The AAP's policy on circumcision states that the benefits are not significant enough for the AAP to recommend circumcision as a routine procedure.
In 2000, they ran an article in their journal that stated that risks outweight potential benefits:
A Trade-off Analysis of Routine Newborn Circumcision looks at the risks and benefits associated with circumcision, and concludes that while circumcision remains a relatively safe procedure, for some parents, the risks reported may outweigh the potential benefits. Based on their study of 354,297 newborn male infants, researchers determined that a complication could be expected in 1 out of every 476 circumcisions.
Though granted, they were mushy enough to backpedal somewhat with this editor's note:
EDITOR'S NOTE: This study was published in the supplement to the January issue of Pediatrics, the peer-reviewed, scientific journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), but does not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of the Academy.
If you have research that refutes the numerous links I've provided, I'd be happy to look at it.
And while parents can now legally make this decision for their children, my hope is that someday this horribly painful procedure will be made as illegal as any other unneeded newborn genital surgery. Already many insurance companies will no longer pay for circumcisions(understandable given the high risk of complication).
That being said, I don't take this argument personally. Clearly we are at the point where we are going to have to agree to disagree.
by JaneKnowles on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:05:00 PM PDT
by vinifera on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:25:03 PM PDT
by sanchez96 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 06:39:08 PM PDT
"I knew Auntie Mame, I've camped it up with Auntie Mame, She was a friend of mine.
AND YOU'RE NO AUNTIE MAME!"
Look, I know you're allowed to adopt any nom de snark you like around here, including revered madcap gay icons, but I really resent this one.
Besides, she sounds a lot more like Mommie Dearest than Auntie Mame if you ask me (and even if you don't).
Well Dayum! The Fat Lady just sang her tits right off!
by homogenius on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 08:55:39 AM PDT
by Auntie Mame on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:00:54 PM PDT
You accuse of people of being 'fundamentalists' but you fail to support any scientific studies that support your position - eg, that circ is not cruel and painful. When people post studies to the contrary, you ignore them and continue with your arguments.
This is very much unproductivce.
by tritium on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:05:16 PM PDT
by tvb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:59:57 PM PDT
My wife and I have decided to not circumcise our soon-to-be son. All of my other male friends are also chosing that path. (Despite the frequent "but, he won't look like you" argument you hear in the media)
Back in days when sanitation and personal hygene were seriously lacking, circumcision was truly a great idea. It just doesn't make any sense in the 21st century.
by Irrelevant Prolixity on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 09:08:52 AM PDT
My OB-GYN said more like 95%.
My son's pediatrician praised us for not circumcising, but no one else.
I think the Midwest is a "dead ender" with respect to circ.
by rhubarb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 10:07:15 AM PDT
by tvb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:07:17 PM PDT
I'm cut, and as far as I can tell everything works fine, but it seems like such a goddamn ridiculous ritual, rooted in an archaic religious tradition that has no place in a first world society of the 21st century.
I don't lose sleep over it or anything, but every time a sexually related discussion like this comes up I can't help but remember that I'm not quite "complete."
Sometimes the jokes write themselves. Sometimes they run for President.
by Sixfortyfive on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 09:44:52 AM PDT
by vinifera on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 10:40:55 AM PDT
My son is circumcised, for lots of reasons. I'm not sorry we did it and I don't believe it was cruel of us to do so. You have every right to disagree, but you can't call something "cruel" and then not understand why you may be called inflammatory.
by Auntie Mame on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 11:53:02 AM PDT
I don't know you or your son. I'm sure his well-being is of upmost importance for you. I'm probably as militant over this as a lot of women on this site are over abortion. I have a deep resentment when it comes to other people having control over my body, cultural norms be damned.
by Sixfortyfive on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 12:04:19 PM PDT
"And tell me how does god choose whose prayers does he refuse?" Tom Waits
by madaprn on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:22:46 PM PDT
by JaneKnowles on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 12:16:07 PM PDT
by michael1104 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 12:22:40 PM PDT
by Auntie Mame on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 12:29:54 PM PDT
by tvb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:08:45 PM PDT
It is a risky surgery and we're still researching some of the negative side affects. Why take the chance of removing something that evolution has chosen for again and again over the millions of years of our development?
by JaneKnowles on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 12:41:10 PM PDT
And while it is legal, knowing that a parent finds this practice hardly worth a blithe shrug really prejudices me against him.
by rhubarb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:31:12 PM PDT
It's incredible thinking about that because I was only an infant! So, yes, I do believe the infant knows and remembers.
by tvb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:47:39 PM PDT
by Dysfraxion on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 06:29:51 PM PDT
I actually didn't discover what was different about me until the first time I had sex with another woman because it waas never explained to me in detail. I was horrified by it and it did quite a bit of damage to me pyschologically. There were always tons of genital exams but I thought that was pretty normal for all kids.
Therapy and self-education was incredibly helpful and I'm past that, thankfully. It became a matter of accepting what was done and education about why it occurred. I then learned to love myself and forgive my parents once my mom told me how little she knew about their situation and how they thought it was for the best because that's what the doctors told her.
As far as sex goes, I've learned to compensate quite well. The comfort I now have in my body and the ability to be able to talk it about has rewarded me quite well. As long as my partner is comfortable with it (she is and then some), all is fine and I am able to orgasm most of the time.
The adaptation I was forced to undergo by my lot in life has even given me the ability to orgasm without stimulation of any kind beyond my brain. Something like 2% of women can do it and I am grateful I found myself in that minority. Without sounding too weird on it, it kind of enters the realm of the missing limb where the feelings are still there if you are able to recognize them.
by tvb on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 08:26:07 PM PDT
What's sickening is when people cite the babies who don't cry as evidence that circumcision is not painful. Either these babies are in physical shock, or they are practicing an extreme form of withdrawal. I always wonder whether such babies will be able to have any sort of bonding with their mothers.
by vinifera on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 09:15:42 PM PDT
Mind you, most people refuse to even discuss the effects of circumcision; let alone admit to something like that.
by Shapeshifter on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 10:10:32 PM PDT
by sanchez96 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 12:27:53 PM PDT
If not, here's what took place.
http://www.medscape.com/content/2003/00/45/36/453637/art-adnc453637.fig1.jpg http://www.circumcision.org/SCAN2.gif http://www.fortunecity.com/millenium/sesame/177/mhbabysm.jpg http://www.danheller.com/images/Topics/Circumcision/circumcision-08-big.jpg
Links = NSFW
by Irrelevant Prolixity on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:50:26 PM PDT
They may not remember it like an adult would, but it does in effect rewire their nervous system on a long term basis, perhaps permanently.
These were very robust studies published in The Lancet, with the findings significant at the 99% and 99.9% statistical confidence levels.
http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio/ http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio2/
by tritium on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:03:57 PM PDT
After my first grandson was born (at home), there was much discussion about whether it should be done to him. I asked my dad what he thought. He said "Don't do it."
Burnet O (-8.31,-6.31)Impeach Them Both
by BurnetO on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:44:14 PM PDT
by tritium on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 06:06:19 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 269 comments