Iceland proposes ban on male circumcision

[Deletedaccount1]

Just because something is rare doesn't mean that its not done nor does it mean that it isn't just as invasive or even less as MGM forms that are in practice.

http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/20...n-medical-myth
http://www.circumcision.org/hiv.htm
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...giene-and-stds

MGM being somehow anti-aids is a myth, it really doens't affect HIV infection in any meaningful way.

Also, MGM is just as bad as FGM, it doesn't trivialize FGM. What you do however is trivializing MGM, somehow you are okay with mutilating the genitals of males for no apparent reason what so ever.

You misunderstand me. I know FGM isn't rare, the particular type of FGM that removes only the clitoral hood is rare. Type 3 FGM which is the most common is also the most extreme.

If you really believe that there isn't strong evidence reduces HIV infection rates than you are simply too biased to listen to reason. I understand there is conflicting data but that is the same with almost anything, including the belief that vaccines cause autism. There is at least as strong a case that circumcisions help prevent HIV as there is evidence that vaccines don't cause autism. The WHO, CDC, UNAIDs and the most rigorous studies support this view.

What do you mean "no apparent reason"? The reasons are quite clear. It reduces the risk of transferring STIs, it eliminates the possibility of developing phimosis and there is also some evidence it can reduce the risk of cancer in both men and women (who are the sexual partners of circumcised men) as well as UTI.

There is absolutely no way circumcision is as bad as FGM unless you seriously believe that all circumcised men feel nothing during sex and are likely to develop difficulty urinating, chronic pain, cysts, infertility and bleeding because that is what happens to women who undergo type 3 FGM. That statement is literally indefensible.

[Deletedaccount1]

You do know that's wrong?
They totally feel pain - It's been done in MRI cameras to debunk this deeply delusional belief.

The study in question, disputed to say the least, in any case We have condoms.
Slight notice here though, Literally everything is illegal about FGM - Even things that are Completely comparable.

Yeah stop talking about this - You literally know nothing, Because removing the foreskin has been shown to reduce sensitivity.

The pain that infants feeling during circumcision isn't lasting or chronic which is more likely to occur as an adult undergoing the procedure. I should have been more clear.

How is circumcision reducing HIV "disputed" when every major international organization that deals with HIV endorses it? Condoms are useless when people have sex to have kids and spread HIV that way, something which is quite common in the third world.

Your source is horribly biased and you are telling me to stop talking because I know nothing? Try using a neutral source.

[Levelfive]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19115756

"CONCLUSION:

Circumcision had no protective effect in the prevention of HIV transmission. This is a concern, and has implications for the possible adoption of the mass male circumcision strategy both as a public health policy and an HIV prevention strategy."

[Deleted]

The pain that infants feeling during circumcision isn't lasting or chronic which is more likely to occur as an adult undergoing the procedure. I should have been more clear.

Oh, so if pain isn't chronic and lasting you can torture kids by performing surgery on them with no anesthesia? - It remains a truly barbaric practice.

How is circumcision reducing HIV "disputed" when every major international organization that deals with HIV endorses it? Condoms are useless when people have sex to have kids and spread HIV that way, something which is quite common in the third world.

See Levelfive.

Your source is horribly biased and you are telling me to stop talking because I know nothing? Try using a neutral source.

Why is my source horibly biased?
In any case it does not matter - Because you need a good fucking reason to chop parts of a baby off

[Jyggalag]

Just because you had this medical problem doesn't mean that everyone has this complication. The reason for a medical procedure like the one you had is only performed when it is beneficial to you, if there had not been any need for it, would you still want to do it now? Would you say to all males you meet now that they should go to the hospital and "have it fixed" right now because they might get an infection?

Then why would you want to do this to newborn babies if there really is no need for it?

It's hard to say because I wasn't able to experience sex properly prior to being circumcised - but now, without a shadow of a doubt, I believe it has done nothing but wonders for my own sexual performance. I've had enough feedback from various women to suggest I can last far longer than the average, uncircumcised male. Not a single woman I've met can tell the difference based on appearance.
I live in a country where it is practically only ever performed in the event of a medical necessity (UK). I never have the same issues my male friends have with regards to keeping it clean etc. It also makes it look bigger IMO which is always a good thing.

- - - Updated - - -

This sounds like a failure of your doctor (did you ever see one for regular checkups as a child?).
They should have caught this years earlier and in almost all cases this problem can be solved without surgery if caught at that time.
It is virtually impossible for a medical professional not to catch this problem if they check for it. Of course it invlolves touching there.

Anyways, your case would not be affected by this law, but I advise you to have your potential sons see a medical professional more often than you did for regular check-ups.

You could be right. I live in the UK and regular checkups for this sort of thing on the NHS don't happen at all. A lack of education on the subject meant I was literally trying to have sex for the first time before I even realized it was an issue.

My point is I cannot see a single negative from having it done, whereas my own experience of not having it done is enough to warrant having it done as early as possible to avoid the pain and embarrassment that could come during the years when most people are only just becoming sexually active.

[Puupi]

You could be right. I live in the UK and regular checkups for this sort of thing on the NHS don't happen at all. A lack of education on the subject meant I was literally trying to have sex for the first time before I even realized it was an issue.

My point is I cannot see a single negative from having it done, whereas my own experience of not having it done is enough to warrant having it done as early as possible to avoid the pain and embarrassment that could come during the years when most people are only just becoming sexually active.

You didn't masturbate before? Never seen porn?

How could you not know you had an issue with your foreskin?

[Noradin]

Our school offered free checkups from a urologist but it was a private school. I remember at least a couple of schoolmates missed a few weeks after that checkup because their pediatricians never really checked their genitals.

Those were hacks then, not professional pediatricians.
If caught early enough protential phimosis can be easily prevented without surgery, but it involves touching genitals of children and it is my understanding that some people rather cut them off than have anyone (least of all the kids) touch them for any reason.

- - - Updated - - -

You could be right. I live in the UK and regular checkups for this sort of thing on the NHS don't happen at all. A lack of education on the subject meant I was literally trying to have sex for the first time before I even realized it was an issue.

My point is I cannot see a single negative from having it done, whereas my own experience of not having it done is enough to warrant having it done as early as possible to avoid the pain and embarrassment that could come during the years when most people are only just becoming sexually active.

It is a very substantial injury to the nervous system of boys and there are better alternatives for almost all things it is supposed to "cure".
The only downside of not cutting it off is that all the alternatives require you to pay attention to your childrens naughty bits and have some pediatricians touch them every other year.

[Jyggalag]

You didn't masturbate before? Never seen porn?

How could you not know you had an issue with your foreskin?

As odd as it sounds, I managed to do just fine with this, albeit my technique was rather unorthodox. Adapt, improvise, improve

[Puupi]

As odd as it sounds, I managed to do just fine with this, albeit my technique was rather unorthodox. Adapt, improvise, improve

So this all falls under your own ignorance/negligence.

[Jyggalag]

It is a very substantial injury to the nervous system of boys and there are better alternatives for almost all things it is supposed to "cure".
The only downside of not cutting it off is that all the alternatives require you to pay attention to your childrens naughty bits and have some pediatricians touch them every other year.

Mine seems to work just fine, apart from having difficulty 'finishing', which I've always put down to desensitizing myself through porn (I watch some freaky shit).

But yes, you've convinced me. I'll have to educate myself on any potential nervous system damage before commenting further.

- - - Updated - - -

So this all falls under your own ignorance/negligence.

In spite of all those masturbation manuals and retracting foreskin guides readily available to me at 13 y/o in 2001. Yes...

[Flurryfang]

The Jewsish community should really just adapt and make changes to their own religion to match the current view on human rights. Having the circumcision happend at 18 changes nothing about the religion and does not bar anybody from practicing or participating in it. They could still allow circumcision to happend if the person is about to die or something like that, just so they can die as part of the religious group, but aside from that, the tradtition of kids circumcision is really outdated.

[Puupi]

In spite of all those masturbation manuals and retracting foreskin guides readily available to me at 13 y/o in 2001. Yes...

I had phimosis issues when I was young and I sure as hell was aware of my issues.

PS. I'm older than you.

[Jyggalag]

I had phimosis issues when I was young and I sure as hell was aware of my issues.

PS. I'm older than you.

I was aware I had it. I'm only now discovering it even has a name. At no point did it occur to me that it wasn't normal. I never attempted to force it back so there was no pain. I figured it would just sort itself out as I got older. I guess you're just smarter than me too

[Noradin]

I was aware I had it. I'm only now discovering it even has a name. At no point did it occur to me that it wasn't normal. I never attempted to force it back so there was no pain. I figured it would just sort itself out as I got older. I guess you're just smarter than me too

It is a failing of your pediatrician.
I know I was made aware of the problem before I went to school.

[shaunika123]

The Wikipedia article on circumcision says that the WHO and the UNAIDS recommend circumcision in areas with high HIV rates. It also says it has been linked to reduced risk of cancer and UTI. It doesn't mention that these studies have been contested.

you know what's also good against HIV? condoms, and you dont even have to cut stuff off yourself.

- - - Updated - - -

You're proving my point by saying a study doesn't mean anything if you don't agree with it. A culture argument doesn't prove anything either, as I could just turn around and say "Circumcisions have been around for XXX years, if they did any real harm they would've been banned and outlawed long ago." Goes back to my original question: why is this legislature coming up now?

again, not what I'm saying. can you even read? when you have a kid in places where vaccines arent mandatory, the doctor will SERIOUSLY recommend you do them.
is the same thing happening with circumcision? no, doubt it, but if it had serious and widely accepted mecial benefits, it would.

it's not my place to agree with these studies, nor is it yours, it's the medical professionals all over the world, and if they don't think it's necessary, then i'M going to trust them.

and I knew you were gonna come back with the "it's been around so long" thing, but really, there's a lot of stuff that's been around that long, doesnt make them good.

it's coming up now, because it's coming up now.

if you could discard any law proposal because "why is it coming up now" there'd be literally no laws made.

why did gay marriage come up when it did? doesi t matter? point is that it shouldve been legal and it's been made legal.

[Deleted]

You could be right. I live in the UK and regular checkups for this sort of thing on the NHS don't happen at all. A lack of education on the subject meant I was literally trying to have sex for the first time before I even realized it was an issue.

My point is I cannot see a single negative from having it done, whereas my own experience of not having it done is enough to warrant having it done as early as possible to avoid the pain and embarrassment that could come during the years when most people are only just becoming sexually active.

From what i follow, you had phimosis, didn't that make it hard (he) to masturbate?

[Jyggalag]

From what i follow, you had phimosis, didn't that make it hard (he) to masturbate?

Nope, got some weird ass unconventional method, but does the trick. Just what felt right growing up and I still do it today.

[Deleted]

You could be right. I live in the UK and regular checkups for this sort of thing on the NHS don't happen at all. A lack of education on the subject meant I was literally trying to have sex for the first time before I even realized it was an issue.

My point is I cannot see a single negative from having it done, whereas my own experience of not having it done is enough to warrant having it done as early as possible to avoid the pain and embarrassment that could come during the years when most people are only just becoming sexually active.

That's a you issue NOT a circumcision issue. If tight foreskins affected the mass majority then you may have a point but it isnt. Also circumcision isn't always needed

- - - Updated - - -

Anyway I cba to read the last 24 pages so I imagine we're still at mostly Americans v Europeans

[Jyggalag]

That's a you issue NOT a circumcision issue. If tight foreskins affected the mass majority then you may have a point but it isnt. Also circumcision isn't always needed

Sure, but my younger brother had the same issue and had his done 2 years later. My only experience with it is enough to make me vote on the side of having the parents be able to chose at birth, so that if I have a son in the future, he won't have to go through the same awful ordeal that I did. Nothing religious about it - purely anecdotal.

[Deletedaccount1]

you know what's also good against HIV? condoms, and you dont even have to cut stuff off yourself.

People in the third world have sex to have kids more often than for fun. The condoms argument doesn't work.