circumcision and autism

Post Reply New Topic

than i suppose i'm the odd one out again…

i agree. i find lack of consent to be of far more concern. it seems pretty obvious to me. it is mutilation

Herman~

When I read anti-circumcision stuff I think their argument is that the circumcised man is quickly going for the climax from lack of sensations of the foreskin and the missing nerve endings during sex. Something along those lines if I recall correctly.

Either way, I'm against it. Even if someone argues it isn't mutilation I don't see how it can be argued that it isn't permanently modifying someone else's body to their own specifications, and that person can't really say no, except cry.

If it is said it's done in case of future problems that don't currently exist. I think you could argue pulling teeth prevents root canals and cavities.

That's how I see it.

Why cut what is a natural part of anatomy??? Unless it is highly abnormal and life-threatening?

Also, there is significant risk of terrible complications, 1 in 500 cut baby boys have at least hemorrhage, and 1 in 50,000 suffer from accidental castration. Yep. Sometimes adult men go get partially circumcised because of a frenulum issue, and come out of surgery having had their foreskin completely amputated without their consent, which is tragic, unnecessary, and worthy of malpractice lawsuits.

Who suffers from reduced sexual pleasure as adults? Both partners. The male's cut penis develops a very tough layer of skin (keratis) that is MUCH less sensitive during sex! Cut men who were circumcised as babies have NO CLUE as to how dramatically less their sensations are, and as a woman who has knowledge of the natural man, it is definitely a situation of dealing with an amputee.... the foreskin having been amputated... resulting in no 'gliding action' between the unfolding foreskin and unfolding rugae of the female's insides, the natural lubrication of the organs is greatly interfered with. You can throw in official lubrication substances, but it cannot restore the indescribably amazing design of mutual unfolding sensations. Also, natural men have a much better time with condoms, due to aforementioned gliding mechanism.

As a female who has experienced a few partners, both natural and cut men, there is an extraordinary difference for females. A cut man's anatomy (and ignorance about how that anatomy requires compensating techniques and awareness, tends to often be felt as just 'poking' or various discomforting words, whereas a natural man (if a kind and respectful one) is easily able to provide comfortable, joyous sensations from the first moment.

That said, there are cut men who have worked on their emotional selves and can be awesome lovers if their heart is whole and 'uncut' - and there are natural men who have hard hearts and disrespectful ways. So, at the end of the day, it's about the whole man.

For cut men, there are foreskin restoration techniques (the external penile skin cells multiply when stretched) and there are behavioral techniques from eastern traditions that help make one a wonderful lover, regardless of anatomy. That said, genital mutilation is a political issue that deserves attention, and genital integrity is a human birthright. If guys want to cut themselves when they are older, and live with the potential consequences of complications, etc., fine - but doing it to infants is barbaric and stupid.

For any Jewish folk who might be reading, research bris-milah vs. bris-pariah. The original circumcision practiced was a mostly symbolic practice that involved one pinprick that produced a drop of blood. Today's full circumcision has to do with medical doctors who re-trained mohels in the 1930s in order to increase circumcision rates in urban centers. Today's mohels are trained in full amputation only, rather sadly.

It's not about friction. The foreskin contains it's own sensitive areas. Not on the outside, but the 'inside' bit. It's not the be all/end all of sexual pleasure. It will decrease sensitivity however.

Since the head is fully exposed in general it will be less sensitive than one that doesn't have that kind of exposure.

Considering there are no health benefits you'd have to be an idiot to it to someone.

Premature ejaculation has little to do with 'overstimulation'.

Removal of the foreskin does not mean you're not going to enjoy sex. It just means the sensation will (on average) be less compared to someone with a foreskin.

Because cleaning behind the foreskin is so difficult in the first place...


There are no health benefits to male or female circumcision. There are only consequences.

The operation should not be done to children. It is a violation of their right to sexual health and expression. Adults can do whatever the hell they want as far as I'm concerned. Just research it before you mutilate your body ffs.

I know this is an old thread, but this paper says there's a strong link, though it may be due to the paracetamol given afterwards:

[I can't post the link so you'll have to google "Prenatal and perinatal analgesic exposure and autism: an ecological link."]

For studies including boys born after 1995, there was a strong correlation between country-level (n = 9) autism/ASD prevalence in males and a country's circumcision rate (r = 0.98). A very similar pattern was seen among U.S. states and when comparing the 3 main racial/ethnic groups in the U.S. The country-level correlation between autism/ASD prevalence in males and paracetamol was considerably weaker before 1995 when the drug became widely used during circumcision.

It has many useful functions.

One of which is that you can pull it out with your thumb and forefinger in a way that draws air into it, then use your thumb as a valve to stop the trapped air getting out, do this a few times so the foreskin is inflated like a small balloon.

Then you can squeeze the inflated foreskin so that the air is expelled in such a way that it makes a fart noise.

Women love it.

^^^

I believe it causes autism just as I believe that becoming an MTV star infects people with a virus that makes them stupid.

I completely disagree with her but I will say, within the procedure, if an infant undergoes antibiotics PLUS that infant has a weak immune system, I can see where her misguided ness is coming from.

Personally, I think circumcision is child abuse.

I completely disagree with her but I will say, within the procedure, if an infant undergoes antibiotics PLUS already has a weak immune system, I can see where her misguidedness is coming from.

Personally, I think circumcision is child abuse. Circumcision stems from a religious practice that inhibited men from performing sexual acts. Removing the foreskin decreases sexual stimulus because the multiple nerve endings of the penis is damaged. People were then taught that this procedure prevented infections.. which is untrue. Now it is mainly done to avoid social stigma. In Canada, it is no longer covered by medical care because they have since decided it is NOT a medical need.

There are multiple support groups for men who have HAD this procedure, who feel it has affected their quality of life. A procedure like this, done at such a young age, prior to an infants ability to choose, is JUST WRONG.

My parents still insist that circumcision somehow prevents masturbation. My father says he read an article about it, although he doesn't know where he saw it. They have also said that they would have had my sisters circumcized if the insurance would have paid. They blame the lack of genital mutilation as the reason my sisters all got knocked up before they were married.

Is female circumsision legal in the US? Your parents should have given their daughters condoms, much cheaper than getting knocked up.
And masturbation is perfectly healthy, I don't see why parents would try to take that away from their child (even if it doesn't work).