Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"labiaplasty for infant girls" If this actually happens, it is rare.
Females deal with smegma, just like uncut males. Both sexes can usually take care of the smegma with proper hygiene. The glaring difference is that many doctors and parents will cut off a boy's foreskin as a preventative measure whereas with girls they will just recommend proper hygiene.
Below are quotes taken from the link above. Note how smegma in females is not viewed as an "oh my god, let's cut it off" moment as some people think it is for uncut males.
Quote:
Smegma, in turn, if it is not washed away with frequent bathing, can harden and rub between the hood and the shaft similar to a grain of sand under an eyelid — the result is an irritated clitoris that can produce incredible pain at the merest movement.
Quote:
Accumulations of smegma can also cause the skin of the hood to adhere (stick) to the shaft and ***** (similar to what can happen with a man who has foreskin). These clitoral adhesions can cause pain and irritation as well.
Quote:
If you have recurrent episodes of clitoral pain, you may want to try soaking in a steamy tub and gently moving the skin around the clitoris back and away from the ***** — don't tug or forcibly retract the hood since this can cause further pain and irritation. These gentle "stretches" can, over time, widen the opening of the hood, allowing more freedom of movement for both pleasure and washing.
Quote:
Gynecologists might remove adhesions and/or stretch the opening of the clitoral hood after using a local anesthetic to first numb the genital region.
It's rich in nerve ending and adds to erotic pleasure, especially via the ridged band and Meissner's corpuscles. It acts as a rolling bearing in intercourse and masturbation. It prevents dyspareunia (painful intercourse).It stores pheromones and releases them on arousal. It stores, releases and helps distribute natural lubricants ("smega" and pre-ejaculatory fluid). It prevents the gl*ns from becoming keratinised, and keeps it soft and moist.It protects the thin-skinned gl*ns against injury. It protects the nerves of the gl*ns, retaining their erotic function. It provides lysosomes for bacteriostatic action around the gl*ns.
I'm guessing what I put in bold, the restored foreskin might do also (I asked what the natural foreskin does that the restored foreskin cannot do). In fact, some of my guesses are correct, as you can verify at the websites below. You can correct me if/wherever I'm wrong, though.
So, at very most, you're arguing for the sake of even more sexual stimulation that the restored foreskin can provide, and lysosomes for "bacteriostatic action", which for all I can tell refers to immunity and this happens to be one of circumcision's biggest pros as well.
Thank you for remaining on point, but these are hardly reasons to suggest people shouldn't be able to circumcise their newborns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
Personally, I cannot stand the feeling of when my foreskin has been retracted for longer than say 30 minutes. The gl*ns become terribly dried out and feels chapped and sandpapery. It nears the point of being unbearably uncomfortable.
I feel very sorry for men who have to put up with this feeling, thinking it's normal that their gl*ns be like a dried up sandpaper raisin, for their entire life.
I for one have had no such discomfort. Sure it can become dry, just like many parts of the body become dry if you never use lotion or moisturizer. But methinks you are assuming too much about the experiences most circumcised men have. Most likely, this part of the body (like every other part) simply adapts, becoming less sensitive because it is never covered in the first place.
I also have no complaints regarding sexual pleasure.
I for one have had no such discomfort. Sure it can become dry, just like many parts of the body become dry if you never use lotion or moisturizer. But methinks you are assuming too much about the experiences most circumcised men have. Most likely, this part of the body (like every other part) simply adapts, becoming less sensitive because it is never covered in the first place.
I also have no complaints regarding sexual pleasure.
How God awful. The penis is a sex organ. I don't want it to adapt (forcibly) and become "less sensitive". That's lessening a major part of the function it plays in sexual health. Nobody has the right to do that to me.
And of course you don't view it as discomfort since it's what you've been forced to accept as normal - you've never know it any other way. Imagine if we burnt out the taste buds of infant children. They would think not tasting was normal and would dismiss as hogwash the suggestion from any tasters that they were living without the human comfort and enjoyment of tasting food.
How God awful. The penis is a sex organ. I don't want it to adapt (forcibly) and become "less sensitive". That's lessening a major part of the function it plays in sexual health. Nobody has the right to do that to me.
That is how you see it because you're accustomed to having it another way. Yes, the penis is a sex organ. Trust me, it is still a sex organ after circumcision, and sex is still very enjoyable. It's quite a subjective judgment call, that whatever difference in feel this creates is worth forsaking the many reasons to have a newborn baby circumcised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
And of course you don't view it as discomfort since it's what you've been forced to accept as normal - you've never know it any other way. Imagine if we burnt out the taste buds of infant children. They would think not tasting was normal and would dismiss as hogwash the suggestion from any tasters that they were living without the human comfort and enjoyment of tasting food.
Unfortunately for you and this comparison, taste is a very important part of determining whether something is "Ok" to eat. And unless you have something on "tastebud cancer", the lack of medical reason to removing one's tastebuds render it all the more incomparable to circumcision.
We all have equal ability to disagree with society or tradition, and I would've gladly risen up against these institutions if either experience or study had given me reason to. But I will not take your non-reasons as reasons to tell other parents they can't circumcise their children.
But I will not take your non-reasons as reasons to tell other parents they can't circumcise their children.
Again, I don't have reasons, I only have one reason. It's a simple one. I possess a fundamental right to control the physical integrity of my own body. As such, nobody, not even my parents, have the right to permanently cut off healthy parts of it.
You might dismiss it as a "non-reason". I don't get that at all. I view it as a fundamentally important reason: I mean, what right is more fundamental to an individual (other than the obvious right to remain living) than the ability to make decisions about his own body - especially it's physical intactness.
Oh, and I'd be curious if you have any thoughts about this earlier post of mine:
Again, I don't have reasons, I only have one reason. It's a simple one. I possess a fundamental right to control the physical integrity of my own body. As such, nobody, not even my parents, have the right to permanently cut off healthy parts of it.
You sure you wanna do that to yourself, and your objective here?
So your only reason is the repetition of your claim: Parents don't have the right to have their infant sons circumcised. But parents' reasons are many, from the medical to the hygienic to the aesthetic. Though you may feel there is something different about this, it's really just one of many things parents have the right to do that the kid may later resent them for. No matter if it's in regards to their body; parents make decisions for their children all the time that may have an equal or even greater impact on their lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
You might dismiss it as a "non-reason". I don't get that at all. I view it as a fundamentally important reason: I mean, what right is more fundamental to an individual (other than the obvious right to remain living) than the ability to make decisions about his own body - especially it's physical intactness.
I'll tell you what right is more fundamental. The right we (who are for the circumcision of infants) have been touching on from the beginning of this thread: a person's health. This goal is more important to parents than even their child's right to make decisions, especially when a particular decision is anchored by the subjective ideal of a body remaining "physically intact".
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
Oh, and I'd be curious if you have any thoughts about this earlier post of mine:
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,068,476 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReturningWest
Sigh....I worked as a nurse in a small hospital in a general surgical unit. I can't tell you how many adult male circumcisions were performed and according to the men it was excruciatingly painful. They developed strictures, chronic UTI's and a few other related health issues - all would not have happened if they had the procedure as infants. Every single one of those men wished they had been circumcised as infants.
The social pressure to be circumcised to 'fit in' in the US is laughable to us in other countries.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,068,476 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough
1. It doesn't matter whether you "don't buy" the health benefits, they are well established by research.
2. I really don't believe that there is any substantial number of circumcised men who sincerely feel that their sexual pleasure is impaired, no matter what they say. I can tell you that I've never been in a gathering of men where I've heard anyone say something like, "Boy, I wish I'd never been circumcised. Sex is just no fun for me."
How would they know? A man doesn't know what it's like to have an orgasm as a woman, so if he's missing out on anything he wouldn't know...
Now if I were to be circumcised tomorrow I WOULD know if there was a difference or not.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,068,476 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
Because I find it to be a gross violation of that man's rights. Nobody should have the ability, or "right", to permanently remove perfectly healthy and functioning parts of my body except for me. Period.
Definitely. The sooner it is the banned the better. And as for religion, one more reason it violates personal rights.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And as for religion, one more reason it violates personal rights.
