Circumcision gets the tick of approval

New research has found that newborn male circumcision is beneficial.

Circumcision gets the tick of approval

New research from the American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP) which evaluates 10 years of evidence has found that newborn male circumcision is beneficial to both the person in question and their future partners.

The benefits outlined by the AAP include the prevention of urinary tract infections, acquisition of HIV, transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, and penile cancer. The study also looked into whether circumcision affected penile sexual function and satisfaction and found no adverse affects during the evaluation.

The research from this study is at odds with the statement published in 2010 by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, which declared that the benefits did not warrant routine circumcisions.

Read more from BrisbaneTimes.com.au

Opinion - Monkey see, monkey do

Circumcision, and the decision of parents to have their child undergo this operation, is a mystery to many. Yet I believe it is rather simple. We are taught when growing up that we don’t want to stand out from the crowd and to be normal is to be desired. It is the instinct of a father that his child should be the image of him.

I am still very young in years and less than a decade ago cast my first vote on who would become our next prime minister. I followed the vote of my parents, as I didn’t have a clear view at that time and many of my acquaintances were casting their vote the same way. It was not until I gathered more information and a better understanding of Australian politics and the parties involved that I broke away and made my own decisions. The same is true for many parents with circumcision.

Circumcision was the norm in Australia up until the 1970s and since then, there has been a drastic change in the thoughts of Australians, with parents opting to get their children circumcised, now in the minority.

From the research I have read over the past week about circumcision, the benefits do sound worthy of the operation, but not essential.

How did you decide whether to circumcise your children? Should the benefits of circumcision be promoted by doctors?





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    frog
    30th Aug 2012
    12:40pm
    Due to an infection when he was 11, my husband insisted when our twin sons were born they be circumsised
    davewatto
    30th Aug 2012
    1:00pm
    Circumcision is genital mutilation, plain and simple. It is not essential and therefore the risks, including infections, pain and suffering caused are not worth any possible benefits.
    fpbsix
    30th Aug 2012
    2:44pm
    i had 5 sons , lived near the scrub , yes they had long pants long socke covering the pants , & were fully covered against LEACHES, ;=BUT one still got into his PENIS,we didnt know for 3 days until he was rushed to Hospitalm 3 hours away. this could have been seen sooner if he had been circumcised .wich the doctor had to do to get ehe LEACH out .!
    Michael
    30th Aug 2012
    5:51pm
    Davewatto, the whole idea of circumcision is to avoid infection!
    Reppie
    30th Aug 2012
    1:11pm
    It basically needs to be a decision made by the parents. There are OFTEN cases where this has to be done - a friend's grandson came home from school in agony, his foreskin had for some reason shrunk and was strangling his penis. He wass 6 years old. He isn''t the only boy to suffer something like this.

    My sons were circumcised - both mine and my husbands choices. When the younger one was born in 1977 we had to have damn good reasons for it, or else my gyno. would not consider it. No regrets here, nor do my sons as it appears all works well, regardless!!
    PlanB
    30th Aug 2012
    1:20pm
    I think it is better to have it done both for the male child and their later partner, my Son was done when he was born--he doesn't remember a thing about it--although I am sure that when it was done he would have felt pain--but a day or so later he never seemed to notice it.

    It is much more painful and remembered if done later in life
    Nautilus
    30th Aug 2012
    1:26pm
    Routine circumcision of infants is a compulsory religious rite of Judiasm and Islam. "God got it wrong", the Rabbis and Imams insist. Only they can put it right they say, CHOP!

    There always were lobbyists in the medical profession then and now and there is $$ in it. Not a bad little earner if every infant gets surgery to 'correct' nature's alleged faults. It is not unusual for an activist minority (for $$ or because of religion doesn't matter), to succeed in wrong-steppng and bullying the larger and more reasonable body of doctors. The same is true elsewhere in life.

    Boys are always up for it, for cutting up, because their bodies are not perfect and inviolate like wonderful girls. That is what comes of being made of snails and puppy dogs tails, and not beautiful spices and everything nice.

    There is no 'medical' argument for cutting away skin from a boy's penis that if accepted is not more applicable to girls. It only takes a cursory look at the female vulva to realise that women have flaps of skin too and often plenty of it, with complex ruffles and folds. It is all there but hard for the owner to see and keep clean, and much, much more prone to infection if where a sanitary regime is forgotten.

    Worse, the design and proximity of the vulva to the anus makes it a certainty that serious infections will occur if girls are not trained by mums to wipe in the right direction. Equally, if the vulva's owner indulges in casual sex, the risky sexual promiscuity will ensure that all sorts of crud including bodily fluids will lodge within the folds of the 'flower' of that unique and wonderful creation that are girls and womyn.

    It should be obvious where this is leading:

    -check what 'evidence' is claimed to support the religious/political conclusions of this book research; and

    - who is behind it. It shouldn't be too hard to find bearded religious fundamentalists. Maybe some surgeons who made a jolly good living from snipping away too.

    Studies that rely on statistics from the African continent are dealing with very particular (and awful) unique conditions. Rape is commonplace (as with Australia's indigenous girls) and HIV/AIDS is in plague proportions. The conditions have ensured transfer of HIV/AIDS to heterosexual couples through bisexual partners. Girls and young women of childbearing age are of course more likely top engage in risky promiscuity and more likely to be the victims of sexual assaults.

    That is where snipping off the folds of skin on boys and girls could have some slight help in reducing the transmission of AIDS/HIV - where that disease has crossed to the heterosexual population. Obviously grot can accumulate in any fold of skin and every nook and cranny where water is not used to clean.

    Why be silent on the obvious though? That the whole gambit of STDs and disorders is on the increase and the primary, overwhelming contributor is sexual risk taking? In Australia, health authorities in Queensland are reactivated the Grim Reaper advertisement. It is a more 'sensitive', politically corrected version. But the object is clear, if you really MUST engage in casual sex with a heap of dudes, do insist on a condom. That won't stop a number of other STDs and disorders eg gay bowel syndrome is now occurring in women, here are some details,
    http://www.homosexinfo.org/Sexuality/AnalEroticism
    - but it does offer some reliable prevention against AIDS/HIV and common STDs.

    It is nothing short of ridiculous to claim that cutting off then foreskin (labia too?) is any effective preventive. Or that it should be done on a routine basis.

    In the interim it would be interesting to hear why the cutting of an infant boy's body is Ok, but not girls. Also, why doesn't the requirement for informed consent apply equally to boys?
    Nautilus
    30th Aug 2012
    1:42pm
    To be very blunt, why are all boys born with a crippling birth defect that takes a takes an Rabbi, Imam or specialist foreskin lopping surgeon to correct?

    But no-one seriously contemples lopping girls' flaps.

    ...But wait a bit, the religious fundamenralists don't mind getting to work on girls too where they get a chance.
    aquatrek
    30th Aug 2012
    2:07pm
    The topic was quite heavily discussed on Q&A this week. Germaine Greer as usual had some rather 'outside the box' viewpoints.
    Taskid
    30th Aug 2012
    2:38pm
    Nautilus

    Christianity does not require anything added it to it. When Jesus died on the Cross, He said, "It is finished" and it was. Man can of himself add nothing to what Jesus did for mankind.

    It is sad that practices in some religions which are abhorrent are still carried out, but then looking at the way many today mutilate and disfigure their bodies with piercings, tattoos etc I guess the secular world is pretty hard on bodies too. :)
    Nautilus
    30th Aug 2012
    4:10pm
    MEK

    Be assured I am not criticising religions as such. I do volunteer work through two local churches. I am not a practicing Christian. I am not as some appear to be, frightened of religions. Some are problematic. Some being the operative word.

    As you appreciate, adults can choose tattoos and such. While I might not like them myself that is their choosing. It is different where minors are concerned and regardless of belief, parents should not be encouraged to take liberties with a child's body.
    Ellen
    30th Aug 2012
    2:02pm
    Yes, look at humankind all over the world. The tendency to nip and tuck has always been there, be it elongated necks, enlarged lower lips, modern day ear rings, navel and nose rings, the list is long. Just because we can, do we have to???
    aquatrek
    30th Aug 2012
    2:05pm
    i WANT MINE BACK LOL The historical answer is just one word - religion; unless we discover a Neanderthal male preserved in a glacier with bits chopped off. How many, that get the baby procedure out of the millions that still do, suffer an infection whether it be performed at a religious ceremony or in a hospital ? AAP versus RACP ? RACP acknowledge benefits - so what are they Drew ? Why tell half a story ?
    Drew
    30th Aug 2012
    2:27pm
    This is the document in question which if you read the executive summary, should answer all the questions - http://www.kids.vic.gov.au/downloads/male_circumcision.pdf
    aquatrek
    30th Aug 2012
    3:15pm
    Thanks Drew - that didnt help a great deal as much the same analytical results except that this an Oz promulgated policy. Principals come to mind - KISS [keep it simple stupid] and 'If it aint broke then dont fix it !!' I will never get mine back so cant make any further evaluation. Although I just luv one of the original reasons - to control masturbation haha Much the same as the vibrator was originally developed and deliberately medically administered to supposedly control 'fainting' caused by orgasm. We are just apes after all hahahaha
    Taskid
    30th Aug 2012
    3:26pm
    aquatrek

    Speak for yourself "we are all apes after all." If your rellies hung from trees and you are happy with that goodonya mate, but mine sure didn't. Think you must follow Darwinism, that your religion??? Never proven you know.
    aquatrek
    1st Sep 2012
    12:45pm
    You have no idea as to what the word religion even means.

    Evolution is one of the many sciences that are assisting humankind to discover what is going on in the universe. If you dont think that biological evolution has been 'proven' to occur then you will also discount the theories of plate tectonics and therefore the earth is flat. You will also discount the theories that the climate over the whole earth also changes periodically and therefore ice does not accumulate in huge thick glaciers and that the oceans do not rise and fall as the ice thickens and then melts over long periods of time. You will also discount the theories that humankind have migrated over the whole planet. Therefore the people who live in Patagonia just arrived there by QANTAS seemingly yesterday.

    Yet you are such a hypocrite that you relish the wonderful life style and medications that keep you alive and well. For instance the chemistry behind chlorination of water so that you dont die from some water borne disease. If I was you I would start seriously giving prayers of thanks to all past, present and future scientists.
    fpbsix
    30th Aug 2012
    2:47pm
    Please REAR 5 SONS in the SCRUB _BUSH , 3 hours away from a hospital before Making a comment .& DONT BRING GOD into it .
    mummu
    30th Aug 2012
    2:58pm
    Christians believe God is our designer. When God made a promise to Abraham who had been a very religious person who listened to his conscience and lived a righteous live, God said to Abraham that as a sign of this promise you have your male children circumciced and follow my laws which are the ten commandments, which by the way were given for us to protect you and I, and God will bless you and yours. But st seems to work for health reasons as well. Wisdom from above !
    Taskid
    30th Aug 2012
    3:10pm
    fpbsix
    And your point is?????
    aquatrek
    30th Aug 2012
    3:16pm
    man was made in the 'image' of God so he has had the op for sure
    Anonymous
    30th Aug 2012
    3:37pm
    Or God was made in the image of man....think about it?
    aquatrek
    30th Aug 2012
    3:50pm
    oh no - the chicken and the egg debate

    Divine revelation resolution = God & man are one and the same thing providing you are male and circumcised; albeit [my fav word this week] also multi-dimensional; multi-colored; multi-sexual; multi-DNA; cant think of any more multi's just right now
    Taskid
    30th Aug 2012
    4:04pm
    mussitate

    I think man would like to have made God. Some mind you, think they are or they know better. :0)

    aquatrek

    multi-storey
    Taskid
    30th Aug 2012
    3:24pm
    aquatrek

    Nice try, but I think that is the spiritual image, not the fleshly one, Jesus was circumcised and when He was here in the flesh OOOOOOOOOOOOOps not sposed to mention Him according to fpbix until I have "raised five sons in the bush" - what what her/his religion is????
    fpbsix
    30th Aug 2012
    3:44pm
    As a loving christian =God Bless your lovely reply .
    Taskid
    30th Aug 2012
    3:59pm
    fpbsix

    Amazing how people don't want believe in the Christian God but then expect people who do to live up to the unbelievers perception of how we should be. I really can see how your situation with your five boys and hospital 3 hours away, that would have been tough for any medical situation. People in the scrub are admirably tough, I actually admire their fortitude. I was having just a laugh, apologise if I offended you.
    Taskid
    30th Aug 2012
    3:59pm
    fpbsix

    Amazing how people don't want believe in the Christian God but then expect people who do to live up to the unbelievers perception of how we should be. I really can see how your situation with your five boys and hospital 3 hours away, that would have been tough for any medical situation. People in the scrub are admirably tough, I actually admire their fortitude. I was having just a laugh, apologise if I offended you.
    fpbsix
    30th Aug 2012
    4:08pm
    Its Ok, yes I did rear all 9 of my children as Catholic , But as they are all adults now they are all Religions, except one he is a Buddah Follower , which is a very peaceful life to live & he is also manageing a Orpanage , overseas . & no we are 3 generations Australian , Of course Mixed , French, German, Scottish, Irish .I call myself a scrambled egg mix .
    Taskid
    30th Aug 2012
    4:19pm
    fpbsix

    Wow I thought I was a "heinz"variety, guess most Aussies are. Mine is Engish, Scottish, German, French. I like "scrambled egg mix" must remember that one. :)
    chertl
    30th Aug 2012
    3:26pm
    When my first son was born at the Mater Hospital I was told that they don't do circumcision any more. I tried unsuccessfully the first year to have him done, even in the outpatients dept. The dr I had was the father of 5 boys[ all had been done] but still argued that he wouldn't do it. So now they have decided it is to be done. Can the medical profession make up their mind as to what is right. [this was in 1966]

    30th Aug 2012
    3:44pm
    Goodness with Naughtilass talking about removing female genitalia and others sprouting anti some religious beliefs and pro other religious beliefs, it is a bit much for me.

    fpbsix.....Bravo!....Bravo!

    It is more a MEDICAL thing in Australia and not religious.

    My son was not but was required to be when he was six, due to the same reasons as Repple's son (see above).

    There you have it!
    fpbsix
    30th Aug 2012
    3:51pm
    yes , also , only 3 of my sons had to be done due to medical Reasons .
    fpbsix
    30th Aug 2012
    3:47pm
    Opinion - Monkey see, monkey do=AS ABOVE .... I didnt know monkeys were circumcised.
    aquatrek
    30th Aug 2012
    3:52pm
    last I heard down the 'monkey vine' was that they had convened a high ranking committee and were working on it
    fpbsix
    30th Aug 2012
    3:53pm
    HAAAAAAAAAA good one
    fpbsix
    30th Aug 2012
    4:09pm
    to everyone on this answering site =“My religion is very simple. My religion is kindness.”
    mummu
    1st Sep 2012
    11:34am
    that is exactly what Jesus taught, your conscience is doing a good job
    Nautilus
    30th Aug 2012
    4:37pm
    Routine circumcision is the problem. That and diverting taxpayers money into providing it (Medicare). Medically necessary circumcision is a rare condition.

    Circumcision is only one of a number of tribal/religious practices directed at children to serve the superstitious beliefs of their parents and appease those who in turn control them, often violating their basic human and civil rights, and freedom in the process.

    An example could be the painful primitive tattoos of children by Islanders. But there examples in Aboriginal tribalism as well.

    Of course if it is at all possible to call these 'cultural' practices, the government may even lend tacit support, or turn a blind eye. Multiculturalism permits some boys and girls to be denied the ordinary legal rights and protections that other children have as an automatic right as Australian citizens. Except where lopping bits off boys is concerned, that is.

    There will come a time and it is not too far off when the victims of these practices will be able to sue their parents and carers. No insurer will protect any offender from the legal costs and damages.
    aquatrek
    30th Aug 2012
    4:46pm
    Much of what you say is good stuff. The societal changes in our 'blink of an eye' lifetimes have been enormous. The shackles of tribalism and religion are slowly but surely being shrugged off. Globalism, technologies that unite peoples across continents, medical marvels etc I just wish that I could be around for another cupla hundred years or so to see what becomes of this fledgling primate species as it struggles to get out of the nest.
    Anonymous
    30th Aug 2012
    5:08pm
    Given the problems detailed in some of the above comments, you may consider that circumcision, falls into the category of medical and that discussions of the origins of this practice, in this day and age, are superfluous.

    As women do not have loose skin surrounding their genitalia, it hardly seems relevant when discussing male circumcision. However, if you were discussing the removal of part of the penis itself, then you would validate your need to bring into the discussion, female genitalia.
    Taskid
    30th Aug 2012
    5:22pm
    aquatrek

    :0) Where have you been??? Such sweeping statements - "tribalism and religion are surely but slowly being shrugged off."

    People may be moving from some "religions" but, they move to others such as New Age beliefs, hedonism, atheism, communism, humanism, all religions in their own way, a set of beliefs.

    Thank the Lord Christianity is more than any of those and will never pass away, Jesus is not going anywhere I can assure you of that.

    Tribalism in a huge part of the planet is alive and well - not everyone lives in a Western country you know. Comeon don't just monkey around with facts. :)

    Mind you if you are but a glorified ape and do not have a soul, well I guess for you it is different. Mmmmmmmmmmmm have to ponder that one.
    Nautilus
    30th Aug 2012
    5:27pm
    Mussitate, "As women do not have loose skin surrounding their genitalia, it hardly seems relevant when discussing male circumcision."

    Where are you looking Mussitate?
    Of course women have flaps of skin. As a matter of fact cosmetic surgery is available to correct 'embarrassing' saddle bags. Here you go,
    http://labiaplastysurgeon.com/labiaplasty-photos.html

    The comparison is sound. The questions I posed remain unanswered.
    Anonymous
    30th Aug 2012
    5:49pm
    Naughtilass

    Male circumcision is removing a piece of SKIN ONLY!!!! The part of the female genitalia that you are referring to is FLESH and yes it has skin on it!!!!!

    Your reference to cosmetic surgery is obtuse because people get cosmetic surgery done to all parts of the body for non medical reasons.
    Ellen
    30th Aug 2012
    4:56pm
    I like the" lopping bits of boys" bit. In our educatated days about diets and wellbeing there surely is a place to teach hygiene, starting at pre- school, kindie and seminars for expecting parents...A government educational thing, like washing your hands after using the bathroom and brushing your teeth!!!
    Nautilus
    30th Aug 2012
    5:17pm
    People in Australia are innocents. They do not realise that around half the number of boy babies are routinely circumcised in the US. The US has a very strong orthordox religious history and leanings.

    Circumcision in the US is very big business and subsidy by government is what this is all over. The Rabbis want it and so do the Imams. As for the doctors who arrived at the self-serving finding that circumcision is mildly useful, these procedures cost 700 plus clams per, I believe. Obstetricians and gynecologists are the bods who perform them. So while they are 'on site' so to speak, why not snip the kid and cream some extra on top?

    It is unnecessary cosmetic surgery. Bloody few of those kids are going to fit the mold of the sample who are exposed to the conditions supposed to be mildly prevented by cutting.

    Yet mothers would put their infant at risk of an anaesthetic and some butcher improving upon the defenceless little bundle of joy they just produced.

    There has been a drop in circumcisions after some celebrated cases of poor outcomes. For example in Sweden, with arguably the foremost health care in the world a Muslim infant boy died. As with most medical problems it is very difficult to establish contribution to a death or other poor outcome following treatment. A complainant could be sued for defamation.

    Mothers are very vulnerable. Those who are treating them stand to profit. Let the buyer beware. Did God and mum get it wrong? Or the facts being massaged a bit by others to suit their secondary agendas? It wouldn't be the first time one side gets enlarged while the demerit side is shrunken.
    Anonymous
    30th Aug 2012
    5:57pm
    There are lot of weird practices in the US by ALL religious groups. All irrelevant in Australia, unless of course they try to bring that weird sh**te into Australia.

    It is really not an issue here, it is simply a choice based upon preference (mostly). Some think it cleaner (your preposition) and more 'common/normal' to have the penis circumcised and others prefer the natural way and look.

    If the circumcision is done by medical practitioners, as most in Australia are, then there is no real problem. Those that choose to have it done by non medical persons, then they, the parents themselves, are responsible.
    Nautilus
    30th Aug 2012
    8:28pm
    First do no harm.

    The death of a Muslim boy in Sweden finally triggered action against the religious rite of circumcision. It is untrue then that the procedure is risk free if done in a hospital

    All operations carry risk. Even minor carry the risk of serious complications such as brain damage or death from the anaesthetic, or serious infection such as staph. Anaesthetic and infants are recipes for unexpected serious consequences.
    Michael
    30th Aug 2012
    6:04pm
    Butcher?? You certainly are prone to the dramatic! Like I remarked before it is done mainly to prevent infection. Lets keep religion out of the discussion----female parts too!
    Michael
    30th Aug 2012
    6:07pm
    Butcher comment was meant for nautilus I cannot type fast enough !!!!
    Nautilus
    30th Aug 2012
    8:22pm
    It is not "done mainly to prevent infection" at all. Mutilation of sexual organs is rooted in religious superstition and control of the 'flock'. It is a guilt trip and a way of marking the members of the tribe. It is a rite of initiation, just like gangs.
    Michael
    30th Aug 2012
    11:05pm
    Nautilus, you are reading the wrong books!
    lindylou
    30th Aug 2012
    6:34pm
    Right or wrong, I am undecided. One of my earlier memories is from a visit to the Royal Brisbane Children's Hospital. At a table in the same room where I was being treated, was a boy of anbout 12, who had an infected penis and was undergoing a medically necessary circumcision. Yes, he was in pain an crying, but the end result was health. Whatever the cause, it seems to me, there are undisputable benefits. My husband isn't, my brother is, and both are very happy with themselves.
    Nautilus
    30th Aug 2012
    8:30pm
    "Whatever the cause, it seems to me, there are undisputable benefits."

    Using that logic you would be in favour of removing breast tissue at birth to prevent cancer.
    Michael
    30th Aug 2012
    11:09pm
    Nautilus, using your logic we should be knocked on the head at birth.
    Twila
    30th Aug 2012
    7:00pm
    I have two sons, one circumcised and one not. The eldest was delivered by a European obstetrian who considered it unnecessary. The second son was delivered by an Australia, who performed the circumcision as a matter-of-course. When the circumcision debate erupted in the early 70's with discussions about needing to look the same, I had a rush of bad parent guilt.

    In an attempt to make ammends I broached the subject to my sons. They told me they hadn't really noticed that they were different, just assumed these as birth differences, like their noses.
    Twila
    30th Aug 2012
    7:12pm
    I can't confirm this, but I have been told that circumcision hightens sexual pleasure.

    I'm sure if this was widely publicised, the stampede for circumcision would outweigh the fear of pain, or of "mutilation" ...
    Nautilus
    30th Aug 2012
    8:33pm
    Utter rot. In fact the spruikers for cutting boys say that there is decreased sensitivity which is advantageous in servicing woman.
    Twila
    30th Aug 2012
    8:45pm
    So circumcision is now a 'feminist' plot.

    Whether circumcision is rooted in superstition or not, evidence indicates that it affords some benefit. Many believe in preventive medicine. You mention risks involved. It would be interesting to know if these risks outway the possible health risks, even mortalities, resulting from not being circumcised. A few babies have died as a result of vaccination. This does not nullify the enormous benefits from vaccination.
    Nautilus
    30th Aug 2012
    9:12pm
    There are no enormous benefits from circumcision though. That is, unless you are a religious fundamentalist, or a doctor who like re-jigging what nature has provided and getting a nice little earner in the process.
    Michael
    30th Aug 2012
    11:12pm
    What a sad person you are, Nautilus. Suspicious of all humanity.
    ozirules
    30th Aug 2012
    9:05pm
    Medical reasons would be valid if there were a queue of males with foreskins seeking help for problems.What percentage of non circumcised males do have problems in later life.Should we remove the appendix of every new born child to save possible complications in later life or perhaps the toe nails to avoid them becoming ingrown. With modern anaesthetics the snipping can be done painlessly on adults if and when it becomes necessary.
    Twila
    30th Aug 2012
    9:18pm
    Nautilus,
    "... servicing women ..." sounds so very onerus. What men have to go though ...

    Positing women as the prime movers, perhaps women should decide on aesthetic grounds which they prefer ... circumcised or unncircumcised ...

    ozirules,
    Adult men who have been circumcised speak of the unbearable pain lasting for some time afterward. But then men have never gone through childbirth.
    Nautilus
    30th Aug 2012
    10:33pm
    twila,

    Fatherless families are now common. Also,, women have the one and final say on fertility and on the child. So yes, it is fair to day that the routine cutting of boys is down to women. (It isn't what I said though.)

    There would be a terrible outcry if men were making a similar decison about baby girls. Hmmm, these wee flaps (pun intended) could gather crud. Problematic! Lets cut them all off and charge it up to Medicare.
    ozirules
    30th Aug 2012
    9:24pm
    Twila, thats an old chestnut bringing up the 'men have never gone thru childbirth' argument. We men know that women hide behind that because they know we cant prove we could bear chilbirth as well as or better than women. It cant be any worse than a severe case of constipation now, can it :-))))
    Twila
    30th Aug 2012
    9:38pm
    ozirules,
    Women are very lucky if they go through a straight-forward delivery, complications are not infrequent.

    Yes I know, many men do think they are at death's door if they have severe constipation. So I guess they naturally assume it is the same as childbirth. Poor precious mites.
    ozirules
    30th Aug 2012
    9:48pm
    lol Twila....but lets not get sidetracked....I think circumcised men have lost a great opportunity to lose weight in later life....
    Nautilus
    30th Aug 2012
    10:10pm
    Contrary to the thread leader that circumcision 'gets the tick of approval', what that report does is make that particular sectional group in the US the pariahs of the developed world. Circumcision is highly controversial. Everywhere else the developed nations have moved against routine circumcision. It is seen at best as cosmetic surgery.

    The Australian government is reviewing the ability to claim the unnecessary surgical procedure on Medicare. Tasmania is looking seriously at a ban and offending doctors and parents will be required to prove it was medically required to escape prosecution. Governments are aware of the widespread use of fraudulent cover excuses such as alleged skin adhesion to claim Medicare benefits.

    The Courier Mail newspaper reported (Aug 2912) that "Medicare figures show rebates were paid on 3936 circumcisions for baby boys aged six months or younger in Queensland in 2011-12, the second highest in the country behind NSW with 8524."

    Those numbers indicate that circumcision is big money in Australia. It is taxpayers' money being diverted into cosmetic surgery. That it could be put to better use is demonstrated by a story in the same newspaper today about 'ramping' of ambulances through long waits at hospital emergency departments. A man died earlier this month.

    Where government is being forced to raise taxes and cut back on staff for essential services it is not acceptable for millions of taxpayers money to be wasted on routine circumcisions for cosmetic purposes or because the parents believe it is required for health or through religious obligations. Government has to get its priorities right.
    Nautilus
    30th Aug 2012
    10:24pm
    Typo, "The Courier Mail newspaper reported (Aug 2912)". Should be 2012 as most would have realised/
    Abe
    30th Aug 2012
    11:53pm
    There you go again Mek. Spouting your crap. Your family tree doesn't descend from apes?? You must have descended from ostriches, then. Sticking your head in the sand seems to be your forte. If you believe you descended from Adam and Eve, who had two sons, how could they have got married? There were no other people besides them. Think you're a bit dippy, mate. There is more proof for Darwinism than for 'immaculate conception' and all that other claptrap that is written in the 'good book'.
    Taskid
    31st Aug 2012
    8:50am
    Abe

    You are of course entitled to your opinion, limited in capacity as that is. As I said, if you are happy having rellies who crawled from the slime and developed into apes, lovely as they are, that is your misfortune. Mine didn't, I know that for sure. Have a great day and do not eat too many bananas. :0)
    aquatrek
    31st Aug 2012
    9:08am
    MEK the ALIEN
    Taskid
    31st Aug 2012
    1:24pm
    aquatrek

    No MEK one of many who has not been conned by a clever sounding unproven "theory." Wake up slumberer. :0)
    aquatrek
    31st Aug 2012
    2:02pm
    Cogito ergo sum: Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative. I am also very very much wide awake and deeply aware. I am a primate first and a human second.

    Are you Klingon ? tlhIngan maH! nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'
    aquatrek
    31st Aug 2012
    2:17pm
    Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans.

    Once you know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means [42]
    Taskid
    31st Aug 2012
    2:55pm
    aquatrek

    Gosh I have not had so much fun since visiting the zoo. I know the question and thanks be to the Christian God, the only one there is, I know the answer. Search on oh ye of the apes. Just keep chewing those bananas. :0)
    aquatrek
    31st Aug 2012
    3:05pm
    ooooooooooops - naughty [plagiarist] of me to use other peoples work without acknowledgement -14:02 Wikipedia and 14:17 Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
    See how honest we scientists are taught to be otherwise our god will punish us severely also - just like yours - guess they are all the same - same god school products that is.

    MEK: your Alien issue is that you havent figured out the real question - yet.
    Taskid
    31st Aug 2012
    3:27pm
    aquatek

    My dear friend, I have figured out the question and sought down many philosophical, scientific and humanist theories. Then the Person of Truth, (Jesus) found me and provided the answers no human endeavours could. Searching when one searches in vain is great to fill in time as I found in my youth, but does not provide any real answers or Truth.

    Watch out for the lions, they devour monkeys. :0)
    aquatrek
    31st Aug 2012
    3:33pm
    MEK: OK - last one - did any of your relatives at the zoo recognize you ? [The ones behind the bars that is]
    Taskid
    31st Aug 2012
    3:49pm
    aquatrek

    Nope they are just animals, lovely part of God's creation, but mere brute beasts all the same, no soul, no consciousness of who or what they are. Is that how it is for you?

    Abe avoided answering so I will ask you, could you tell me when at which stage of "evolution" man acquired souls and consciousness of who they are? If you can I will be delighted to here who put them there??????

    That assumes I am chatting with a human not a poor monkey who just goes by instinct. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I am waiting.................
    aquatrek
    31st Aug 2012
    4:08pm
    The findings: [just a sample]
    http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001024
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100929171739.htm

    The method: [just a summary]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

    My conclusion: So called 'higher intelligence' is a man derived 'power play' so as to subjugate other persona. That humans equate all things against their own perceptions means that it is no wonder that humans derive the notion that they are 'all powerful in all things'. Yet many species exhibit far greater 'power' than humans that enable them to do many things far far better than humans.

    So we get to the human 'soul' big Q. Just another human derived notion applicable only to themselves. The very 1st time that any species was able to mentally conclude - bloody hell thats me !! and what the bloody hell are those dangly bits doing there ? maybe a touch of makeup here and here will lure that big male I saw yesterday ?
    will never be known unless a suitable DNA key can be determined. That other Q of 'who put it there [intelligence ?]' has already been answered by the word 'evolution'.
    aquatrek
    31st Aug 2012
    4:11pm
    IF only we could have a chat with our cousins the Neanderthals [humans are very likely to have some of their much more ancient DNA] but we may have eaten them before we got around to it.
    Taskid
    31st Aug 2012
    4:22pm
    Good try, but falls short. You see the soul of necessity, not being able to be seen, or subjected to necessarily limited scientific means, must be something other than physical surely. Now my question still remains, when did it enter and who put it there.

    I am sure you would enjoy swapping grunts, even bananas with the neanderthals. Just another question, if evolution is true, why do we still have apes, monkeys, gorillas?? Evolution seems to be a bit inconsistent don't you think. Happy swinging. :0)
    aquatrek
    31st Aug 2012
    4:48pm
    What dont you comprehend about evolution ? - the last Q is very weird. Fossils illustrate a record of many many lifeforms now gone extinct over millenia. All current species have ancestoral lineages just as you do - you didnt just beam down unless you really are ... na wont go there. Lineages are related to time - you know the tick tock sound. Geological and biological time frames logically extend well back beyond human historical records.

    As for your 'search' for scientific 'proof' of a soul well that borders on the edge of lunacy because if it aint really there then it cant be proved [although some quantum theorists could easily disprove that notion]. None of your line of believers have ever exclaimed 'eureka - I am back and I brought my soul with me' so there is no 'spiritual' proof either. Just back to that basic premise that it is a concept invented by primates/humans.
    Taskid
    31st Aug 2012
    6:11pm
    aquatrek

    Yes there are fossils, I have no problem with that, but the actual link between various natural creatures cannot be proven. It shows they existed, it does not show one evolved into another.

    I think it takes a more delusional mind to make connections which are materially just not there than to believe in the Christian Living God and His son Jesus.

    Can you show me wind??? You can show me the force of it, the result of its having been somewhere, you can measure many aspects of it, but you cannot hold it in your hand and say –' here is some wind.' Only a fool though would say it does not exist. So many things are not in subjection to material proof, but no one questions their existence.

    Now on evolution. It is a theory of man, a rather mentally tortured man to boot. His friend and encourager, Aldus Huxley, arch atheist. Never able to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. If over time things evolve from one thing to another then it follows surely logically that the original no longer exists, yet we still have apes, monkeys, chimps etc. How come. Explain how they remained the same whilst others “evolved” into some higher form. Why has evolution failed in them and supposedly succeeded in creating man. It is foolishness and the foolish bow the knee to their god evolution.
    aquatrek
    31st Aug 2012
    6:33pm
    You have more 'problems' than anyone I have ever blogged with - Darwin's ideas on evolution were illustrated by evolution in this current geological time frame - finches of the same species had developed different beaks because they had evolved on different Galapagos islands. That is scientific proven fact yet you say that that is false ? Where do the ancestors of birds come from ? If you dont know the simple answers to these basic biological/evolutionary facts then you have not studied any of the sciences nor bothered to improve your knowledge on such matters. Therefore your comments about such things are in themselves utterly false. I put you in the box of not knowing anything and therefore are forced to rely on myth and hearsay written down over 2,000 years ago just to get by. That was when those with wisdom and knowledge of the times thought that the earth was flat. Let your mind stay with that archaic realm or move forward into these holocene times - its your choice.
    Taskid
    31st Aug 2012
    6:46pm
    aquatrek
    You never answer questions, typical. You try to throw up weak science to prove your weak stance. Based on finches beaks???????????? Boy oh boy that is soooo profound.
    Am I supposed to be impressed. I asked you why apes, monkeys, chimps etc still exist? You have no answer only to try to insult me, water off a ducks back. I have walked in the ignorance you are in, you have not had the courage to try what man cannot teach you. You resort to the same old same old drivel atheists run to to protect their precious nothingness with its offer of hopelessness and you call that 'knowledge' - then you try to rubbish something about which you know zero.

    You ask have I ever studies these false assumptions of evolution, no matter how much you protest that is all they are. Have you ever repented of your sin, asked Jesus to be your Saviour? Of course not. So you have no knowledge of the what I know to be a fact. He is there, he does answer those who seek him in truth. Takes courage, guess you are happy hopping from tree to tree though. You miss the best. There is more, much, much more. ;0)

    Have you ever thought about what happens when you die?? I suggest you do some studying of that. There is plenty of information there for those game to try it and swim against the crowd.
    aquatrek
    31st Aug 2012
    7:04pm
    I have not insulted you whatsoever. I have merely assessed your skillset at debating such issues as evolution. Here is a starting point for you - the best scientific expression that defines what science is all about is that all present scientists stand on the shoulders of giants. Galileo, Michelangelo, Darwin - the list is now very very long and much of what are the basics were established by the Arab world - the numeral zero for example.

    You ask why certain primate species besides humans are still living today - the answer is a no-brainer - they are at their respective places on their own evolutionary lineage journeys. If you want to improve your knowledge on such matters along with some wisdom then I suggest that you begin here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

    Like I said - it is your choice.

    31st Aug 2012
    12:39am
    I dunno about you blokes - but when I was circumcised 3 days after I was born, it hurt that much, I couldn't walk for a year ....

    Did you hear about the surgeon who kept all the foreskins he removed? He carefully kept them stored, until the day he retired.
    He then decided he'd make a memento of his lifes work from them.
    He sent the foreskins to a prominent leather worker with instructions to make something highly useful from them.
    Back came a small wallet. The surgeon was highly disappointed, to say the least.
    He called the leather worker and said - "I gave you all those foreskins - and the best you could do with them, was to make a small wallet out of them??"
    The leather worker fired back - "Look, don't worry about initial impressions. Stroke that wallet, and it turns into a briefcase!!"
    aquatrek
    31st Aug 2012
    8:17am
    And I thought that U were a lost cause !!! You are well and truly redeemed you olde fart you ;-))
    Abe
    31st Aug 2012
    1:43am
    Big Yorkshireman goes to his local pub and buys drinks for the house. Barman says, What for, mate? Answers, Son, born this mornin' 25 pounds. Three weeks later he walks in the pub and sets the drinks up again. Man says, What's this for, mate? Says, ". Took me new son to hospital this morning. Now he weighs 15 pounds. Had him circumcised!!"
    Michael
    31st Aug 2012
    8:36am
    But did you hear of the professional elephant circumciser. the wages were crap but the tips were absolutely fantastic!
    aquatrek
    31st Aug 2012
    8:15am
    Nautilus: I will always from now on refer reverentially when addressing U as Dr Nautilus
    Nautilus
    31st Aug 2012
    10:38am
    LOL, no need for that aquatrek. I am just following my usual principles that I apply to the decisions government makes for us. My theme are always the same, that:

    - the public has a right to insist on value for money from government; and

    - the public should be aware of the constant manipulation of the media and government by lobby groups.

    I am especially surprised that some here who support the Labor governments federal and State through thick and thin are not doing so where the Gillard government and the Tasmanian government are trying to do the right thing and review government support of circumcision. Why should taxpayers pay for elective cosmetic surgery anyhow? Especially at the behest of Rabbis and Imams?

    Lobbyists (whatever extreme doesn't matter and in this case religious groups) have learned the cleverness of the Marxist approach to propaganda: tell people something often enough and they will begin to believe it. It saves any embarrassing probing of the 'facts' presented and any critic or person foolish enough to ask questions is abused personally to teach him to keep his head down.

    Rather than be manipulated to behave as a mob of 'useful idiots' people need to look for the evidence critically and dispassionately. The problem is that many people are too used to twenty second grabs of 'news' on TV that they only read headlines and follow the 'personalities' and prejudices they prefer. That is always easier than thinking, which can hurt a bit.

    Here is a report that is as dispassionate about circumcision as the American media is able to be. It is worth reading. A few minutes only.

    http://tinyurl.com/circumcision-decline

    A short section from it for a taste,


    Another obstacle, of course, is millennia of tradition. Circumcision is one of the oldest known surgical procedures. Egyptian wall paintings dating to 2300 B.C. depict adult circumcision ceremonies. Aboriginal Australians, Aztecs and Mayans practiced some form of genital cutting. Such traditions have uncertain origins or meanings, but at times appeared to be a rite of passage, test of bravery or sign of endurance, according to a 2007 report by the World Health Organization and UNAIDS.

    “It’s like asking the question ‘Where does religion come from?’ .?.?. There are a lot of different myths around it,” said David L. Gollaher, a medical historian and author of “Circumcision: A History of the World’s Most Controversial Surgery.”

    An estimated 30 percent of men are circumcised around the globe today, according to the report. That includes North Sudanese boys circumcised at age 8 (using a cord and a knife) before they can enter school as well as 2-day-old American-born boys clipped at the hospital using a clamp — sometimes compared to a “cigar cutter” — and some local anesthetic.

    Though most Americans are aware of circumcision’s Jewish roots, worldwide fewer than 1 percent of circumcised men are Jews. Muslims, who make up more than a fifth of the world’s population, account for two-thirds of circumcisions. Islamic circumcision rituals vary widely by region and sect, but Jews adhere to a specific tradition, whereby a boy is circumcised by a specially trained mohel on the eighth day of life.

    The practice is rooted in a deal struck between God and Abraham described in the Book of Genesis: “This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee: Every man child among you shall be circumcised.”

    The Baby Jesus’s circumcision is recorded in the Bible and depicted in medieval and Renaissance art. And although Christianity did not widely embrace the practice, some European churches have claimed to possess the “Holy Foreskin,” a relic credited with miraculous powers. Pilgrims traveled to the northern Italian town of Calcata to pay tribute to one of these relics as recently as 1983, when it was reportedly stolen.>
    aquatrek
    31st Aug 2012
    10:55am
    Dr Nautilus: just last night I dined with very close caucasian friends who were visiting from Sth Africa and I raised the subject [well into the meal of course] and the different African tribes have very strong cultural 'rites of passage' for both men and women. Humanities rituals, dogma, beliefs etc do have such force and impact upon life across the planet. In geological timeframes I do sense the somewhat 'dumbing down' of this 'rich' characteristic tapestry of humanity especially as more and more of it is factually exposed and challenged as to its real thread of worth. Your research is enlightening in this respect. Thanks.

    31st Aug 2012
    11:00am
    Nautilus a few points , HPV virus is more common in men not circumcised & more likely to carry the virus may be one good reason for male circumcision due to their wives being more likely to get cervical cancer. Damage due to circumcision of females in African countries is horrific and cannot and should not be tolerated or mentioned lightly or compared to male circumcision. The Queensland Government has revamped the The Grim Reaper advert because it has removed funding from the different sexual health agencies and is using it as a cheaper scaremongering technique rather than education. The original Grim reaper Ad was only screened about 6 times before it was withdrawn as it was recognised fear without education was pointless. AIDS agencies across the rest of Australia are appalled by this ignorant decision to cut funding taken by the Queensland government.
    Arriving in Australia from GB in the early 1970s we were stunned that circumcision was a common practice but most GPs who delivered baby boys here did them, while in hospital under sterile conditions, for the best outcome (not the money) and were quite relieved when it became non-refundable. There are good reasons for and against circumcision it is a personal choice.
    Nautilus
    31st Aug 2012
    11:42am
    If you are saying that probably no advertisement nor appeal to sense could stop young bareback gays from risky unprotected sex you are right. History shows a pause for them but no stop and the possibility of a medical 'cure' spurred them on. Older homosexuals must fear them and despise their dangerous behaviour.

    Of course the gay lobby always want to remain 'on message' and finds any excuse to knobble any possible criticism and the person making it. The community good of reducing the spread of AIDS/HIV to the general community was worth it.

    The deep concern was if HIV/AIDS was to cross to the heterosexual couples and young women of childbearing age it would be unstoppable. That has come to pass in places like Africa. There wouldn't be many of the mainstream population who didn't stop and think and moderate behaviour. The campaign is needed again because some men who fornicate with women too are not always wearing condoms and they are not informing the woman so she can make her own decision as whether she wants to run the risk of AIDS/HIV and other nasties.

    Regarding heterosexuals, that was the Julian Assange problem wasn't it, that he inflicted his own acceptance of the risks of unprotected sex onto those women by not using a condom, or not using a condom reasonably. Of course any sexual partner wants to make his/her own responsible decisions. Just as every man should have the inalienable right to be informed and decide on what happens to his body, ie to be cut or not.
    Anonymous
    31st Aug 2012
    4:28pm
    Nautilus I am certainly not saying "no advert or appeal to commonsense could stop young bareback gays from risky unprotected sex" you are totally wrong, on the whole gays are the ones who are being sensible. The main concern and advertising is being aimed at healthy red-blooded heterosexual and bi-sexual males young and old working in the mining industry and other well paid jobs which enables them to go to Asia have "fun" and get infected, and come back and infect their partners.There is also a growing problem among older retired hetero Australians both sexes who don't realise/accept they are at risk too. Drug uses have been supplied with needle/syringes to try to prevent sharing AIDs, Hep C etc with other users, these programs are under the umbrella of the sexual health agencies.

    I am not gay but find that fear and superstition and ignorance in only blaming "the gay lobby" is itself a hindrance in controlling a disease which is in the heterosexual community too now and also feel for those who have inadvertently been infected thro' previous ignorance i.e cross infections and transfusions even, recently, Acupuncture needles altho' the Acupunture Society has very strict guidelines for certified Acupuncturists.

    The whole discussion was /is about circumcision - arriving here with European traditionally uncircumcised husband and sons it was obvious that here as in USA it was a cultural almost tribal attitude on asking why I remember being told that when men are in the dry outback sand can get under the foreskin causing massive problems. Maybe that was a valid argument then but these days doesn't apply and sparse medical money shouldn't be squandered, unless it is for a very valid medical reason it should be refused.
    aquatrek
    31st Aug 2012
    11:15am
    Dr Nautilus: 1 - the public has a right to insist on value for money from government; 2 - the public should be aware of the constant manipulation of the media and government by lobby groups. Both top class societal ideals but neither are ever fully truthfully delivered by our governments nowadays; transparency went out the window eons ago - best of luck.
    Nautilus
    31st Aug 2012
    11:21am
    Thanks.
    There are powerful forces in the US aiming to keep government funding of circumcision (something free motivates their flocks to approve cutting their infant sons).
    The research 'proves' that cutting boy babies possibly carries no more risk than leaving them 'intact' in certain pathetically poor, ignorant and sexually permissive African countries. For African poor who scrounge in dumpsters (rubbish skips to us) there is bugger all water and none clean, no soap and the sexual junk of either sex is not rinsed occasionally. So cut off any skin flaps so it can't accumulate there they say.

    Of course the medical researchers who favoured circumcision (a wise move for them in the US, where the Jewish lobby can unseat a congressman) did not recommend free condom dispensing units for the African poor.

    It was enough to massage some findings to suggest that the medical risks of cutting off foreskins might be marginally less than promiscuous behaviour without condoms in a country where STDs are endemic and the people uneducated. After that the media oblige with simplified headlines and twenty second grabs on TV that never properly examine the research or what was actualky recommended.

    The answer to the last question is that the report didn't recommend routine circumcision. They only said that parents should make up their own minds. Of course not all parents have access to proper information either and they are prone to believing the headline and TV grab. The propaganda technique is clever. But above all it is highly effective and used often.
    aquatrek
    31st Aug 2012
    11:32am
    MEK: tlhIngan maH! nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e' [Klingon race?]
    Twila
    31st Aug 2012
    1:05pm
    Nautilus

    "... millions of taxpayers money to be wasted on routine circumcisions for cosmetic purposes ..."

    Millions of dollars? That seems rather exagerated. Cosmetic purposes? Would I be correct in assuming that you see circumcision as an enhancement?
    aquatrek
    31st Aug 2012
    1:16pm
    worldwide
    Twila
    31st Aug 2012
    1:49pm
    Nautilus,
    I have no doubts that you hygienically prepare yourself when servicing women - for which they are eternally grateful. However, not all men do so - and despite all the warnings, etc. wouldn't.

    Male Circumcision Reduces Risk of Genital Herpes and HPV Infection, but Not Syphilis
    http://www.nih.gov/news/health/mar2009/niaid-25.htm

    Herpes can lead to cancer in women and if infection occurs in the third trimester of pregnancy is passed onto her newborn.

    Complications of genital herpes 
    http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Genital-herpes/Pages/Complications.aspx

    “There are three types of neonatal herpes that affect different parts of the body. Neonatal herpes can affect:
    the eyes, mouth and skin
    the central nervous system (brain, nerves and spinal cord)
    multiple organs
    In babies with symptoms affecting only their eyes, mouth or skin, most will make a complete recovery with antiviral treatment. However, the condition is much more serious in cases where multiple organs are affected and nearly a third of infants with this type of neonatal herpes will die. “
    aquatrek
    31st Aug 2012
    2:06pm
    I heard on the 'monkey vine' that most women prefer men to be circumcised at the neck hehe
    aquatrek
    31st Aug 2012
    2:19pm
    Especially praying mantis type of women
    Nautilus
    31st Aug 2012
    2:34pm
    Twila,

    These numbers are from the Australian government and were mentioned in my post,



    The procedures are not done for free and the tax money that pays for them is not available to apply elsewhere for critical shortages. I gave an examples of that too (ie shortages) and ambulance ramping was it. But many here would add such things as pharmaceuticals that would dramatically improve the lives of aged sufferers, but the PBS cannot afford them.

    Regarding circumcision, various STDs and other grotty conditions. Might not the prevention be in changed behaviour, condoms and so on? It is a far call to routinely mutilate the sexual organs of boys, when few of them will ever be part of the risk-taking group, examples being gays and intravenous drug takers.

    Genital herpes prevention lies in notification of partners and choice. A lot of transmission is through oral sex. Cut off lips?



    The tax bucket is not limitless. The federal and Tasmanian governments are presently under attack from religious fundamentalists while reviewing the Medicare payments for circumcisions. The casual Aussie public is not involved.

    Tasmania: http://tinyurl.com/8hcsp6p
    Taskid
    31st Aug 2012
    4:03pm
    nautilas

    That site brought up links to soft porn. You sure you got it right?? I am in Tasmania and have not heard a word about these "religious fundamentalists" you speak of - sure you have not been looking in the wrong places for this??

    If it was an issue here it must have been on the back page of our smallest newspaper. :0)
    aquatrek
    31st Aug 2012
    4:52pm
    what soft porn links - the link doesnt work at all MEK hehe
    Taskid
    31st Aug 2012
    6:34pm
    aquatrek
    It brought up sites which were obviously soft porn girlie sites.
    Nautilus
    31st Aug 2012
    9:11pm
    MEK

    Is that so? Why don't you post the links you arrived at then because what I linked to was a medical specialist cosmetic surgery site. It had photographs to show the procedure that is all.

    What may be the case is that you could be one of those women who was raised in strict Roman Catholicism or similar where girls were made to feel afraid and disgusted by their own body.

    I regularly applaud the good work done by the charity volunteers of some churches. They are the salt of the Earth. But there is a very dark side, the cruel and often ruthless manipulation of vulnerable people by priests to further their personal interests and maintain the future membership of the church.

    Circumcision is employed by Rabbis of Judiasm to control their flock by permanently scarring all Jewish men. Mothers are complicit in that whereas they would never contemplate any similar scarring of their daughters. Go figure! While there may be a positive side to Judiasm and other religions, any that set out to set the adherents apart from society and isolate believers who do not comply has more in common with a religious sect.
    Judaism is the "religion, philosophy, and way of life" of the Jewish people. Judaism, originating in the Hebrew Bible (
    AF
    31st Aug 2012
    3:55pm
    Routine circumcision of infants is a compulsory religious rite of Judiasm and Islam. "God got it wrong", the Rabbis and Imams insist. Only they can put it right they say, CHOP! I am English so therefore was not use to boys being circumcised and when I gave birth to my son in 1975 I was panicking (thinking that they would whip him off to surgery and circumcise him) what a relief when I saw the Doctor and spoke to him and he said "we would only circumcise if you asked and these days we do not encourage circumcision," My husband is circumcised but his father wasn't until he was in his 60's and that was only because he had an accident and the Doctor told him if he had been circumcised as a baby he would have done more damage. The foreskin protected him.
    Twila
    31st Aug 2012
    5:53pm
    AF
    No, it is not a case of "God got it wrong" - it is about belonging to a particular group. Like a number religious injunctions, this originally may have had very sound health reasons considering the environment in which they lived ... desert with very little water.

    Many Muslims diy circumcise their sons and this is often done round puberty, and without anaesthetic. Doctors at Children's hospitals will tell you of their frequent need to repair horrendous mutilation.

    31st Aug 2012
    4:22pm
    If you are too lazy to wash in a childs ear would you cut the ear off to make in easy. Maybe between the toes would be esay to keep clean if the toes were shorter.
    Males lose sensation in their penis because the surface exposed to the air become less sensitive and enjoyment of the sex act is is less.
    Adult males are now sueing their parents for the mutilation and loss of enjoyment.
    fpbsix
    31st Aug 2012
    5:28pm
    Gee I wish you would tell some of my sons that , No 1 son says its a throw away world & that includes wives , so every 7 years he goes to the phillipines & gets himself another wife , & so she can stay in this country she has a baby , & HE IS CIRCUMCISED , no 2 son has 4 children x 1 wife , no 3 son has 1 child x 1 wife, no 4 son has 6 children to 6 different women , no 5 son has 3 children x 2 wives, so circumcising them didnt stop them from having feelings .as a matter of fact they have told me. YEP ME ! there mum , that they rather sex than food . or a beer .
    Twila
    31st Aug 2012
    5:18pm
    aquatrek,
    I also heard on the monkey vine that some men give their penises names. Any conversation would be very one-sided; but perhaps "who's a pretty boy, them?" would satisfy 'both.'

    As to cleanliness, not all men, especially younger men are scrupulous. Many years ago a young colleague asked me for advice. Her boyfriend would cover his penis with icecream and let the dog lick if off. I told her she needed to discuss this with her boyfriend, and also include the dog, which obviously had some stake in this.
    aquatrek
    31st Aug 2012
    5:44pm
    Thats it I am so so inspired now - straight out to the tattooists to get a cupla eyes done and I will have someone to chat with after all - my best mate Wilson and this time it is no simpleton coconut or beachball hehe
    fpbsix
    31st Aug 2012
    5:48pm
    iSNT THERE A JOKE SOMETHING ABOUT, WHEN I WAS YOUNG HE STOOD UP & WATCHED ME SHAVE, ................ & NOW HANGE HIS HEAD IN SHAME . i CANT REMEMBER THE MIDDLE PART .
    aquatrek
    31st Aug 2012
    5:50pm
    what flavour was the icecream ?
    fpbsix
    31st Aug 2012
    5:43pm
    well it just shows us how LONELY all of us must be , as we read & answer most of these Comments , we should call it ;= ( THE LONELY OLD AGED PENSIONERS CLUB )
    Twila
    31st Aug 2012
    6:26pm
    fpbsix,

    LONELY OLD FARTS CLUB ... I think has a better ring. :-]

    Freud wrote of women having 'penis envy' .. .. I don't think so ... This would be more attributable to men. It's quite an obsession. In the early stage of my marriage, I left some embroidery on a chair, with the needle (apparently) pointing up. My husband sat on it. After the initial screaming subsided, I gathered I could have destroyed his manhood. We had five children after this incident, yet he often spoke of this darkly throughout our married life. He now has very bad dementia, doesn't recognise me, but in between bouts of him being completely incomprehensible, this 'life-scarring' incident re-surfaces.
    Twila
    31st Aug 2012
    6:40pm
    fpbsix,

    There is another joke which I think could apply to many men.

    A man was looking around an antique dealer's shop and saw a mirror he liked. The dealer warned him that it was very special; it could grant him one wish. The man purchased this mirror and agonised for days what he would wish for ... wealth, women, etc. etc. After several days, his decision was made.

    "Mirror, mirror on the wall, may my penis reach the floor."

    HIS LEGS DROPPED OFF!
    fpbsix
    31st Aug 2012
    7:33pm
    HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA yep love it
    aquatrek
    31st Aug 2012
    7:36pm
    LOL LOL good one
    Twila
    31st Aug 2012
    7:45pm
    aquatrek,

    You amaze me! I didn't think any man would see the funny side ...
    aquatrek
    31st Aug 2012
    7:56pm
    If one cant laugh at ones own self then one may as well take up religion as a hobby.
    Nautilus
    31st Aug 2012
    9:51pm
    A few posters have been concerned that males might regret it alter in life if they are not cut as infants. Penile 'problems' are mentioned.

    It is quite remarkable how such penis 'problems' are not a concern in countries like Sweden where circumcision at any stage of life is exceedingly rare.

    Apart from that it should be obvious that the truly wise approach would be to leave infants as Nature intended . As the general body of physicians world-wide say "First Do No Harm".

    It should come as no surprise that while it would be the very rare man indeed who pines for circumcision later in life, there are many who were circumcised without their consent and regret it. Some women find it difficult to understand this, but that say a lot about their own unthinking prejudice and desire to find excuses for their own circumcised sons.

    Circumcision does create medical and psychological problems for later. Religious politics in the US for instance, deter any reporting and proving direct links between such disabilities as skin tightness, unsighly deformed penises and skin adhesion to previous circumcision. Proving medical negligence is a very difficult matter, especially where the mum has been obliged to sign away any responsibility for the hospital and doctor.

    But nonetheless problems have been reported by by very reputable sources,

    "Of every 1,000 boys who are circumcised:

    20 to 30 will have a surgical complication, such as too much bleeding or infection in the area.

    2 to 3 will have a more serious complication that needs more treatment. Examples include having too much skin removed or more serious bleeding.

    2 will be admitted to hospital for a urinary tract infection (UTI) before they are one year old.

    About 10 babies may need to have the circumcision done again because of a poor result."

    http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/handouts/circumcision
    Abe
    1st Sep 2012
    12:50am
    I must have had the perfect circumcision. Mine covers the glans penis when not required for action and works back and forth when in use. I still use it for two reasons, and I will be 70 in November. Ride-em-cowboy!! As Gra-Gra said,"It's mine, and I'll wash it as fast as I want".
    Which reminds me of the two young ladies talking at a bus-stop. One said,"What do they call that useless bit of skin at the end of a penis?", to which her friend said,"A man!!!"
    They also say that the penis has a head with no brain, an eye that doesn't see and balls that don't roll.
    Nautilus
    1st Sep 2012
    8:01am
    The allusions to the King if intended are noted. If you shared Gra Gra's feelings of rejection and isolated life -in major part due to his sexuality- that is regrettable. Times have changed.

    There are no young 'ladies' anymore. They drop the 'C' bomb publicly to show how advanced and clever they are.
    Abe
    1st Sep 2012
    1:02am
    PS. This fellow, God, must have been black. Apparently He was here before any white man was, and if He made man in His image they were all black to start with. Yay, bro.
    aquatrek
    1st Sep 2012
    10:08am
    sacre bleu - god is a many hued bi-sexual hemaphrodite

    1st Sep 2012
    7:39am
    A baby was born without eyelids and the mother was upset by this . The doctor said don't worry when we circumcise him we will make him eyelids. The mother said but won't that make him cockeyed. Well yes said the doctor but think of the foresight he will have.
    Nautilus
    1st Sep 2012
    7:50am
    The reason that joke works is because there is a direct comparison The eyelid protects the eye just as the foreskin protects the sensitive glans penis. There is Nature's simple function in both.

    What religious fundamentalists cannot accept is that evolution produced the eyelid and foreskin for a purpose. They go against Nature itself to say that DNA and mum got it wrong. What arrogance!
    aquatrek
    1st Sep 2012
    1:13pm
    MEK the Alien: Just for the exercise of deriving the meaning of everything prove firstly to yourself that you existed on the 1st June 2011, then when you have 100% proven that then provide the evidence to this forum for confirmation. The premise being if that you cant prove it then you didnt exist so everything is meaningless. If you can prove it then you have proven that you have evolved - albeit in a declining fashion because many of your biological cells will have deteriorated due to the natural laws of apoptosis. Best of luck.
    tomtom
    1st Sep 2012
    2:47pm
    I am still looking for the surgeon who performed on me - he took 6 inches too much off !!!
    Twila
    1st Sep 2012
    2:59pm
    I imagine that this discussion is moot. Few of us here would need to decide on whether a baby needs to be circumcised or not ( it is really up to the parents) unless, like Nautilus, is servicing women ... and perhaps of a childbearing age.
    Nautilus
    1st Sep 2012
    4:28pm
    Twila,

    I observed as you very well know but are being deliberately obtuse, that one of the 'advantages' put forward by supporters of circumcision such as yourself is that cutting could de-sensitise the glans and make men 'last' longer.

    That links with one of the original religious intents of cutting: to make male masturbation awkward and reduce its pleasure. Sexual pleasure was seen as sinful. It is still seen as sinful outside of married procreation by the Roman Catholic church and others.

    It hasn't been raised here but circumcision does make masturbation more difficult for men, and for women to give them 'hand-jobs'. Such difficulty has been discussed by well=known Jewish novelists, as have the methods of obtaining 'relief'.

    Also contrary to what you say, circumcision is relevant to all because:

    - good men and women do not stand silently by and see harm done to infants, some of whom are our grand children; and,

    - when government is being lobbied by religious fundies to support routine circumcision the money comes out of our taxes and could be put to better use elsewhere.

    What you are saying is that we should all shut up so your religious fundamentalism can prevail. Interestingly, you and others stop at suggesting teh similar cruel practice for girls. But girls have similar skin folds and are more prone to infection where normal hygiene is not applied.

    Someone else said that sand could lodge in a foreskin, so cut it off. But anyone who has indulged in lovemaking on a beach would say that neither sex is proofed from that.

    Why try to improve on Nature at all though? That is, unless there is religion or profits involved, of course.
    Twila
    1st Sep 2012
    7:15pm
    Well, Nautilus, it seems circumcision is a dastardly plot by religious groups, feminists,the medical profession and the US government no less. Perhaps there is a booming trade for foreskins, which the commodities market is about to break. You do mention profit ...

    Or are you concerned that it might become compulsory for all men, irrespective of age, to be circumcised.

    You really must be clutching at every little thing.

    Females have to cope with menstruation; this guarantees quite a degree of hygiene.

    Parents today have excellent information to make a decision for their sons .... They certainly do not need interfering, meddling old grandfathers ordering them what to do. Or worse, kidnapping their newborn sons and hanging out in a cave some where muttering promises to the baby ...masturbation ... hand-jobs ... and undoubtedly other enjoyments ...

    I did not state my postition as to circumcision; in fact, I stated that one son is not, the other is.

    It is the parents' decision and no one else's.

    Incidentally, your freudian experiences are showing: women who want men to 'last' longer. Would it be fair comment to say that the women you service are not getting what they hoped for ... (the ungrateful wretches)

    I have never heard that circumcised men 'last' longer. Now women reading this can promote it to all their younger sisters. "If you want a longer, lasting man, think Circumcision!"
    Now what have you done for your cause!?

    As for your description of love-making on a beach ... Many will be busy crossing that off their lists.
    Nautilus
    1st Sep 2012
    8:52pm
    Twila

    Yes, it is a religious rite. Religious fundamentalists are driving the circumcision agenda.

    It is genital mutilation just as much as cutting the female organ is genital mutilation. Girls AND boys deserve the protection of the law. They are minors and cannot give informed consent.

    The religious fundies have the gall to demand that governments pay for routine circumcision too. That is to help them to put pressure on their vulnerable adherents. That is what religious sects do. It has no place in modern day, secular Australia.

    It is an absolute disgrace.

    Thankfully, governments of developed countries have said no. The Australian government is reviewing payment under Medicare. The Tasmanian government has already firmed up in the negative. Good!

    It is simple enough, if a mother is determined to circumcise her son, she shouldn't expect the Australian taxpayer to pay for it. Now just where is your problem with that?
    Abe
    1st Sep 2012
    10:18pm
    I reckon most of you "EXPERTS" on circumcision do not realise how much foreskin is removed. Only a small portion is taken from the end to allow the skin to be drawn back to reveal the glans penis. When released it slides down again to protect the whole head, the same as an uncircumcised foreskin, so it does still do its job.
    Twila
    1st Sep 2012
    11:48pm
    Religious rites of circumcision are carried out by specific persons designated by that religion. They are not done in a hospital, as they ARE religious rites

    Judaism employs a trained and certified Mohel, and I believe there is very little tissue taken. There are also some Jewish groups who, like yourself, do not believe in circumcision and do not have their sons done. This is even in Israel.

    I don't know much about the Islamic rite of circumcision. But doctors at children's hospitals will tell you that they frequently have to repair horrendous mutilation done by diy operatives. So obviously these circumcisions are not being done in a hospital. Also the boys are often coming into puberty, and the "surgery" is without anaesthetic. I imagine that such repairs amount to plastic surgery and could be quite costly; (perhaps passed onto the tax-payer?)

    I have no knowledge of any other religious groups who perform circumcision.

    Considering the evidence which is now emerging as to the benefits of circumcision, it really is up to the parents to decide.

    Circumcision done in a hospital is a very, very minor procedure. When my son was done, I was unaware he was being done, and the doctor did not make any extra charge for it.
    Nautilus
    2nd Sep 2012
    1:53am
    @Abe 1 Sept 11.38pm

    Well Abe if you assert that posters here don't know anything about circumcision (but you do) we'd better given them an educational video used for health professionals. So here it is:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6584757516627632617

    using the Plastibell,
    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xk8q2v_plastibell-infant-circumcision_news

    One of the things you will see in the procedure is the foreskin being forcibly removed from the penis. This is what causes adhesions. Because the skin should not be forcibly removed or retracted. On a healthy penis that will occur normally and gradually when the child is older (if the cutting had not occurred) and must not be forced (not usually mentioned to new mothers, unfortunately).

    No-one has dispelled any of the facts I have put forward nor answered any of the very simple questions I have posed. This is a cruel religious rite directed at infant boy children. It is the arrogance of religious fundamentalists to make criminal assaults causing actual bodily harm on infants and presume to get away with it forever.

    It is astounding that mothers can allow this to happen. Commonsense alone should guide them to choose Nature first. Doctors are supposed to practice by the creed, "First Do No Harm".

    But even above all of that, how could it be that one gender, boys, are all born with a crippling disability, a defective penis? If anyone said that about a vagina there would be peels of raucous laughter followed by demands for the errant doctors to be de-registered and run out of town tarred and feathered. What is it about boy babies that unlike girls there are no similar concerns about their body integrity?
    Abe
    2nd Sep 2012
    10:05pm
    "Methinks she doth protest too much". I do think you are a little over the top, Nautilus. The benefits must surely outweigh the deficits. With every operation, no matter how minor or major, there are bound to be mistakes. These are inevitable, but they are in the miniscule minority. And there are always some people who just have to scaremonger. Circumcisions carried out by backyard butchers will nearly always end up in catastrophe, but when the op. is done professionally almost all of them turn out well. Why so much fuss and rhetoric I just cannot fathom. I'm certainly glad mine was done.
    Twila
    2nd Sep 2012
    11:32pm
    Nautilus,
    I respect your viewpoints.

    However, if circumcision had a problems, don't you think that men who had been circumcised (and parents) would have formed a group and be lobbying the government against it; or otherwise mounting campaigns against circumcision being done? If so, the public would be listening.
    Twila
    2nd Sep 2012
    11:41pm
    Nautilus,

    You mention infection as the main reason for not having circumcision. You will find that any infection has not been caused by the circumcision itself, but post-care.

    I would also like to know which religious fundamentalist groups are pushing this wagon. It is an easy generalisation to make, but it would be interesting to know just who are these groups.

    I believe that circumcision done for religious motives, be payable by the parents; and it is so within religious groups I know of.

    Your prime concern seems to be the cost to the tax-payer. I would hazzard a guess that costs relating to conditions arising later, from not being circumcised, far outweigh the former.
    Nautilus
    3rd Sep 2012
    1:38am
    I sense you are being disingenuous in asking me to repeat information I have either given or was in the links. At the same time you disregard the most important points made, which was the inability of the minor to give consent, it is cosmetic surgery and the uneven treatment of boys and girls.
    You are flippant and dismissive about the risks of infection following the operation, but in the videos I have linked to the description and the footage make it clear that circumcision isn't just trimming a bit skin poking over the end, it involves cutting and pealing the skin away from the attachments to the glans and shaft. The penis is left a bloody mess as is seen in the videos. But why create unnecessarily the raw meat as a site for infection in the first place?

    Speaking of the videos, what did you think of them?

    Cost to the taxpayer. Which religious groups. -See this report by the Law Reform Commission. The numbers are 2002. The report found that religious groups have 'their' doctors perform the procedure and claim from Medicare.

    You might also note in the Law Reform Commission report the legal avenues available to anyone circumcised as a minor. Parental consent doesn't replace the child's consent and because the child was a minor he couldn't have given informed consent anyhow.

    Finally, if you believe that the benefits (what ones?) of circumcision outweigh those of the procedure, why aren't you volunteering to have it done to you?
    Nautilus
    3rd Sep 2012
    1:39am
    Law Reform Commission link (missed from above post),
    http://www.qlrc.qld.gov.au/mpapers/mp06.pdf
    Abe
    2nd Sep 2012
    11:46pm
    It all boils down to personal preference,but some people who haven't even got a penis, let alone had a circumcision, just don't know, and will never know, what it is like.
    Nautilus
    3rd Sep 2012
    12:41am
    Whose personal preference might that be, Abe?
    The infant boys are highly vulnerable minors and cannot give consent. They are held and strapped screaming while "the foreskin is cut and peeled away like an orange".
    At that early age the foreskin is actually attached through adhesions. It is an excrutiatingly painful procedure as is apparent from the videos and descriptions.

    For anyone who doesn't know what it is like to have a circumcision I posted two links to videos. Here are the links again,

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6584757516627632617

    using the Plastibell,
    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xk8q2v_plastibell-infant-circumcision_news

    -Just copy and post into your browser.

    This is relevant to the remainder of your comment,
    http://questioncircumcision.weebly.com/men-against-circumcision.html
    Twila
    3rd Sep 2012
    1:38am
    Nautilus,
    Pain is/should not be considered an issue today with anaesthetics - from gells to general. The doctor performing a circumcision and the baby's parents should be well informed about the procedure.
    Nautilus
    3rd Sep 2012
    1:51am
    You are in denial. Look at the videos. Ask the nurses who have to hold the screaming infant's legs apart.

    You imply that parents are well informed about the procedure. How many would be invited to sit down to watch a video of the procedure, or hold the little mire instead of the nurse?
    But who says that their approval will stand up in court if challenged later?
    Twila
    3rd Sep 2012
    2:44am
    It is barbarity to perform circumcision in this day and age without ensuring that it would be pain- free. There are certainly suitable anaesthetics. Are you stating that parents and doctors don't care? That is a monstrous accusation to make.

    Incidentally, I know surgical nurses who have had their sons cirlcumcised.

    Whilst the baby is in distress in that video, it is not screaming nor sobbing in pain ... Look at it again, and adjudge the crying, and changes in crying, of the baby in relation to what is actually occurring.
    Twila
    3rd Sep 2012
    3:00am
    Nautilus,
    You have presented your side of the argument, hysterically so.

    Now it is up to parents to decide for themselves.

    You are insulting the intelligence of new parents, who can weigh the benefits or not from circumcision for themselves.
    Nautilus
    3rd Sep 2012
    7:18am
    "Hysterically" you say? That is a bit low. And you assert, "Whilst the baby is in distress in that video, it is not screaming nor sobbing in pain"

    To be frank, you do come across as an advocate for circumcision and not as unaligned mother, looking for the facts. But other mothers can look at those videos and not hope for the best or deny the facts as you do.

    "Pain free"? You are joking, I bet you never imagined that the skin is prized away, peeled and torn free from the the tiny penis. These are Nature's skin adhesions which are there for a protective purpose. Without the religious nuts or ignorant carers chopping away or forcing it and creating problems, the foreskin frees naturally of its own accord over early childhood years. The overwhelming majority of men in the world are not circumcised and like women take normal, hygenic care of their bodies. They don't have a problem.

    Circumcision is a religious rite and profitable business looking for any excuse. Looking for government money in the shape of Medicare claims too. The taxpayer should not be required to fund anything but operations that are strictly necessary, not cosmetic surgery on a little boy's penis.
    Nautilus
    3rd Sep 2012
    8:48am
    Just as a general comment, infants and anaesthetics do not mix . Any anaesthetic. Use can easily result in unanticipated, sudden and spectacularly devastating reactions. Few hospitals have specialist resuscitation units for infants, especially new-borns.

    Then there are known sinister side effects that can evidence long later (and not be associated with a prior elective circumcision). As this news from the prestigious Mayo Clinic reports,

    "Now a new study from the Mayo Clinic, published on March 24 in the journal Anesthesiology, finds a link between exposure to anesthesia during surgery in infancy and learning disabilities later in life — the first such study to do so in humans — making the decision to operate even more fraught for both parents and doctors."
    http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1887206,00.html

    Risk multiplied depending on the number of exposures to anaesthetic.

    Save any exposure for when a child might need it for a life saving treatment. For example as a result of a childhood accident, or discovery of a debilitating heart problem.
    aquatrek
    3rd Sep 2012
    8:59am
    Summary:
    1 - Male penile circumcision is a tribal/religious driven phenomenon
    2 - Circumcision prior a male attaining societal adulthood denies the rights of the juvenile
    3 - Parents do not have the right to decide to alter naturally occurring human anatomy
    4 - If an adverse medical cause/resolution then costs to be paid out of public monies
    Nautilus
    3rd Sep 2012
    9:14am
    Add legal torture.

    See Infant Responses to Circumcision
    http://www.circumcision.org/response.htm

    "In response to circumcision, the baby cries a helpless, panicky, breathless, high-pitched cry!...[or] lapses into a semi-coma. Both of these states...are abnormal states in the newborn."
    Justin Call, M.D., pediatrician

    "Parents do not know what they are choosing, and physicians do not feel what they are doing."
    Ronald Goldman, Ph.D., author

    "Doctors who circumcise are the most resistant to change. They will not admit that they made a critical mistake by amputating an important part of the penis."
    Paul Fleiss, M.D., pediatrician

    "In this case, the old dictum 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' seems to make good sense."
    Eugene Robin, M.D., professor

    "A whole life can be shaped by an old trauma, remembered or not."
    Lenore Terr, M.D., child psychiatrist

    "If we are to have real peace, we must begin with the children."
    Ghandi

    "We are interconnected. When a baby boy's sexuality is not safe, no one's sexuality is safe."
    Ronald Goldman, Ph.D., author

    "What's done to children, they will do to society."
    Karl Menninger, psychiatrist
    aquatrek
    3rd Sep 2012
    11:35am
    Off topic: more about monkeys and especially for MEK the Alien and anyone else interested in biological evolution [if you have a home PC you can also let international research projects run on your PC when it is sitting there wasteing the service time and PC power that you have already paid for plus the elctricity bill that you will eventually recieve - BOINC]

    http://www.evolutionary-research.net/
    aquatrek
    3rd Sep 2012
    12:47pm
    for service time read 'the contract that you have with an ISP like Bigpond etc'
    for PC power read 'grunt - the actual PC components'
    aquatrek
    3rd Sep 2012
    12:00pm
    Drew: International grid computing would have to be one of the easiest and beneficial contributions to the worlds citizens that all owners of computers can be engaged with. Maybe your organization would promote such a worthwhile mechanism ?
    aquatrek
    3rd Sep 2012
    12:44pm
    http://www.rechenkraft.net/wiki/index.php?title=Willkommen_beim_Verein_Rechenkraft.net_e.V./en
    aquatrek
    3rd Sep 2012
    12:49pm
    Oz contribution - http://www.rechenkraft.net/yoyo/
    Twila
    3rd Sep 2012
    1:52pm
    aquatrek,

    Thanks for the great information ...!

    And I thought that the free online university courses available now were a great innovation (perhaps not as good as attending uni, but certainly worthwhile, specially for the humanities).
    aquatrek
    3rd Sep 2012
    2:09pm
    ta - it is one of my personal creeds to 'assist' having done it all my working life [1968>2000] because I was the professional interface between society and computers. Yet I didnt do any uni until 2005>2011 !! I became a 'recluse' as I didnt really fit into the younger generations uni world and I needed all of my waking time just to deal with the challenges thrown at me - all in all an enlightening experience nevertheless. I am now contemplating UA3 and Probus plus local family history research involvement because they will force me to socialize again [as well as learn].
    Twila
    3rd Sep 2012
    2:48pm
    aquatrek,
    U3A online have a "geneaology" course and also one for "writing family history". I'm about to begin the former (with leader). I have no doubts you will be a life-longer learner ... I know a woman aged 95 who is doing her doctorate on autism. She is quite remarkable - obviously.

    I'm particularly interested in evolutionary neuroscience. Jayne's bicamertal mind is an interesting theory, but a theory nevertheless.

    I imagine that you would have all the details regarding free online uni courses. There are also free languages courses online. If you would like details ...
    aquatrek
    3rd Sep 2012
    6:26pm
    Hi - na to the 1st point - I became 'aware' of the evolutionary/biological morphology discourse when attempting to debate biology Creationists in uni 1st year LOL
    a doctorate is such a huge commitment !! is there such a thing as a free one ?
    but yes pls the links for the free online courses aquatrek@tpg.com.au
    I have dabbled with Espanol but its impossible unless one has the 'gift' plus personnel to discourse with
    Twila
    3rd Sep 2012
    2:54pm
    Nautilus,
    There is an American group who are mounting a petition against circumcision.
    http://www.intactamerica.org/

    For those against it in Australia, perhaps they could do the same.
    fpbsix
    3rd Sep 2012
    3:11pm
    Chapter X

    10. "Listen, then, to what I say unto you: Respect woman, for she is the mother of the universe, and all the truth of divine creation lies in her. [Definitely a teaching from Jesus and see how it is somehow absent in the NewTestament; An accident? I think not! Editor]

    11. "She is the basis of all good and beautiful, as she is also the germ of life and death. On her depends the whole existence of man, for she is his natural and moral support.

    12. She gives birth to you in the midst of suffering By the sweat of her brow she rears you, and until her death you cause her the gravest anxieties. Bless her and worship her, for she is your one friend, your one support on earth.

    13. "Respect her, uphold her. In acting thus you will win her love and her heart. You will find favor in the sight of God and many sins shall be forgiven you."

    ...17. "Even as the God of armies separated of old the light from darkness and the land from the waters, woman possesses the divine faculty of separating in a man good intentions from evil thoughts."
    aquatrek
    3rd Sep 2012
    6:20pm
    ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
    fpbsix
    3rd Sep 2012
    6:49pm
    well everyone else is bringing Religion into it , so i just thought I would too , something some people just might Not have read , that I found Intresting ? and Yes Im a Woman .also in the old days heaps of things were preformed by doctors & dentists, & religious rituals or wise men & women , that we now know wernt neccesary.so maybe it is up to not the doctors or dentists or religious rituals , or wise men & women or people it power, but maybe it SHOULD be left up to the parents .
    aquatrek
    3rd Sep 2012
    6:56pm
    For a start I am not 'everyone' and I find that the introduction of YOUR religion is an offence to ALL who blog on here - unless you wish to represent all religions in the appropriate context.
    Otherwise 3 - Parents do not have the right to decide to alter naturally occurring human anatomy - agree or disagree ?
    Twila
    3rd Sep 2012
    5:48pm
    Nautilus,

    Your 'approach' to non-circumcision bears the same hysteria as those who are against vaccinations for babies.
    aquatrek
    3rd Sep 2012
    6:27pm
    common - pls let the man have and show his 'passion' lol
    Nautilus
    4th Sep 2012
    3:49am
    You only discredit yourself with remarks like that, Twila.
    aquatrek
    4th Sep 2012
    8:57am
    common Dr Nautilus - Twila was nice below
    Twila
    3rd Sep 2012
    6:52pm
    Of course, you are right aquatrek ...
    Nautilus
    4th Sep 2012
    3:47am
    AAP's endorsement of male circumcision undercut
    By Dr. Paul D. Tinari, Vancouver Sun September 1, 2012

    The new AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) circumcision guidelines have everything to do with politics and very little to do with medicine. The AAP, shocked by plummeting circumcision rates and rapidly falling profits for its membership, had to do some-thing dramatic to stem the tide.

    The AAP did do a review of 1,000 published articles, but it is extremely difficult to publish research that has uncovered circumcision harm.

    Moreover, it is virtually impossible to have investigations looking into negative impacts of circumcision funded in the first place.

    For example, the first MRI studies of the adverse impacts of circumcision pain on the infant brain had to be carried out by unpaid researchers who were then unable to publish their results in the open medical literature. The most fundamental question when examining the efficacy of any surgical procedure is how it impacts a patient's life expectancy. Yet no such research has ever been published on circumcision, the most common surgical procedure in North America.

    The AAP's claim that amputating the only movable part of the penis "does not appear to adversely affect" sexual function is like saying removing the wheels does not appear to affect the functionality of an automobile.

    Any man who has had his foreskin restored knows that the AAP doesn't know what they are talking about.

    http://tinyurl.com/AAP-report-criticised
    nevardo
    4th Sep 2012
    8:42am
    I was born with no eyelids. The surgeon said I should get the op. as I could go blind. So they circumcised me and made new eyelids out of the skin, it was a great sucess, but left me a bit cockeyed, Sure was better than going blind. That's why my nickname is JEEP. Just Enough Essential Parts.
    Nautilus
    4th Sep 2012
    1:03pm
    Political correctness deems that a similar joke involving circumcised skin from (say) the female human anatomy, the clitoral hood, (clitoral prepuce), which is a fold of skin that surrounds and protects the clitoris, would be in so offensive as to provoke indignant rage and warrant immediate censure of the offender. No laughing matter at all. On that I would agree, but commonsense alone suggests the same consideration shoudl apply to the body of a infant boy. Not so!

    However the punchline could have used that AngloSaxon word that is part of the common (pun intended) language of ardent feminists and is known as the "C" bomb.

    To wit, If you had been born with no eyelids and the doctor proposed circumcised clitoral prepuces instead, you could have ended up with a "C" of a face.

    Now to await the incoming from those who think that cutting bits off boys is OK, laudable even without pain control (effective pain control is a myth anyhow), but could never imagine how anyone could support 'female genital mutilation'.

    Commonsense is a rarity it seems. So too is sensitivity and empathy for the sad lot of baby boys that they are the vulnerable targets of religious fundies.
    Abe
    4th Sep 2012
    5:18pm
    With a ""C" of a face would one's nose bleed every four weeks?
    Twila
    4th Sep 2012
    5:59pm
    Nautilus,
    aquatrek summarised the points against circumcision well.
    Parents have to make many decisons, including medical, for their sons before they reach adulthood. Some parents may see circumcsion as a preventetive procedure against possible problems for both the son and his partner later on; some parents may adopt your view.

    Ultimately, it is up to the parents. No parent should be made to feel guilty, whatever decision they have taken.
    aquatrek
    4th Sep 2012
    6:21pm
    I am on Dr Nautilus side on this - right from the beginning of a males life the parents do not have the right to decide to alter naturally occurring human anatomy. The sooner it is banned/prohibited in Oz unless a medical issue at the time the sooner the better.
    Twila
    4th Sep 2012
    6:45pm
    Yes, I know you support Nautilus on this. I respect your opinion.

    4th Sep 2012
    6:14pm
    I don't understand how any male could have any idea of any differences between being circumcised and uncircumcised - unless they were circumcised as an adult.
    I was circumcised at birth, I have no problems with it, and my "ole fella" works just fine, and always has done.

    I've never really discussed with anyone else who isn't circumcised, as to whether they have any different feelings in their penis, or any performance restrictions, or any increased disease problems. I have heard of increased potential for infections in uncircumcised men.

    In the Army we all just stood around the communal showers naked and admired those who were better hung - but we never discussed anything about the differences between being cut and not being cut. Generally, the impression I get is that most women reckon a cut penis is more attractive than an uncut one.

    One thing I can tell you is that exposure of the head of the penis doesn't reduce sensitivity, and that the sensitivity of the penis is unaffected by even serious skin damage.

    Many years ago (I think it was about 1986), I was sitting down to breakfast in just my cotton jocks, and I'd heated a cup of water in a china cup in the microwave to make a cup of tea.
    The cup was sitting in front of me as I sat down, and I clumsily managed to knock the cup of boiling water over, and it landed all over my groin area in one big dollop.

    Now, you probably all know that boiling water from a microwaved china cup is BOILING water, because the cup is substantially heated as well.
    I can assure you, I got well and truly burnt. In fact, the pain was so excruciating I can only recall screaming in agony for the first couple of minutes, as I sought some way to ease the pain.

    The entire top of my penis, and adjoining skin on my thighs, and some of my scrotum received major 2nd degree burns. It took several weeks for the healing to be complete.

    I was concerned about the potential for nerve damage and loss of feeling - but when fully recovered, I noticed no loss of feelings in any of the penile senses, and everything works just fine, exactly as it did before the burns.

    Thus, to me, the arguments about circumcision reducing sensitivity seem to be baseless.
    Nautilus
    4th Sep 2012
    7:50pm
    These procedures are not accidents and the boy infants have no say in it,

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6584757516627632617

    using the Plastibell,
    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xk8q2v_plastibell-infant-circumcision_news

    The religions and doctors who make their income out of it want the Australian taxpayer to continue paying for this wretched cosmetic surgery under Medicare. Suffer the little children, eh?
    aquatrek
    5th Sep 2012
    9:28am
    Stay cool man or you will give your grey matter a hernia lol
    Nautilus
    5th Sep 2012
    9:43am
    LOL Thanks for your concern, but I rather imagine that those with vested interest in circumcision are getting hernias.

    I have volunteered for years in helping youth. I wish the same money and effort could be put into that.

    It amazes me that mothers can be convinced not to follow their own instincts and intuition in protecting and caring for their infant sons. It is defective religion not defective foreskins that needs to be excised.
    aquatrek
    5th Sep 2012
    9:47am
    Can you imagine the , if/when the practice is prohibited/banned, by all of the zealots who can no longer mark for life their 'flock' !!!
    aquatrek
    5th Sep 2012
    9:48am
    add furor after the 'the '
    Nautilus
    5th Sep 2012
    11:29am
    Maybe if the adults chose to wear horse hair codpieces, with similar muff wiglets for the women and leave the kids alone to enjoy their childhood innocence.

    Short stand horsehair protectors could heighten the enjoyment for the 'sex is dirty' brigade.
    Nautilus
    5th Sep 2012
    8:46pm
    Short strand not stand.
    But who cares, as long as they leave little boys penises alone. There is something very weird and scummy in Rabbis' and Imams' inordinate interest in boys' penises.

    To think that orthodox Rabbis use their fingernail to gouge and peel the skin from the penis and then with their mouth suck the gushing blood from the penis. Doesn't anyone think that 'therapy' is odd?

    How 11 New York babies contracted Herpes from circumcision:

    http://healthland.time.com/2012/06/07/how-11-new-york-city-babies-contracted-herpes-through-circumcision/
    Nautilus
    6th Sep 2012
    3:02am
    ABE: Short form of Hebrew Abraham

    That figures, another cutter of little boys. Just don't expect the Aussie taxpayer to stump up for your religious rituals, waged against defenceless boy babies.
    Irishwolfhound
    8th Sep 2012
    2:32am
    Just have a look at this article - http://tiny.cc/sdx9jw.
    The Author makes a point about circumcision being for an 'extra' profit for Doctors to earn while delivering children. Why doctors have to be involved in childbirth I have no idea; just for the fees? A good Midwife is far better than a Doctor any day ! At least for those who have no problems during birth.
    Twila
    8th Sep 2012
    5:16pm
    I asked a doctor about the fees from circumcision. After he had roared with laughter, he said the doctors in all parts of the world are comfortably off and do not need the small charge for circumcision. He also responded that there are always sick people who need medical care, so there will not be a run on circumcisions to supplement income. So Nautilus' conspiracy theories about doctors and circumcision hits the dust.

    Irishwolfhoud,
    As you say, midwives can deliver a baby if there are no problems. However, unexpected complications can occur with any delivery, and haemorrage particularly needs rapid medical intervention.
    Nautilus
    8th Sep 2012
    6:36pm
    Twila

    Horse manure. It has been reported publicly that "12 per cent of newborn boys in Australia have circumcision attracting the Medicare benefit".

    Are you alleging that the Health Insurance Commission is fudging the numbers?

    I did link to an independent source for numbers in an earlier post.

    Risks of circumcision, Stanford School of Medicine.
    http://newborns.stanford.edu/CircComplications.html
    Nautilus
    8th Sep 2012
    6:37pm
    First Do No Harm
    Twila
    8th Sep 2012
    11:17pm
    Nautilus,

    I am not questioning the figures, only that doctors deliberately circumcise in order to obtain fees.
    Nautilus
    11th Sep 2012
    7:14pm
    Sometimes it is like lawyers. You think they have your best interests at stake, when all along they are putting their livelihood first. They may rationalise their self-interest as service.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles