Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Circumcision does not reduce sensitivity

11617192122

Posts

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    JJ wrote: »
    We shouldn't force the infant to eat or wear clothes or diapers. WE should wait until they are old enough to make those decisions.
    Unlike circumcision, eating, wearing clothes, and wearing diapers all have substantial medical and physical benefits, not to mention the fact that when the child gets old enough, he can easily decide for himself whether or not he wants to eat, wear clothes, or wear diapers; he cannot decide that he doesn't want to be circumcised.

    I tried that once. I spent a whole day thinking towards my penis, willing the skin to grow back.

    Then I realized that I didn't give a shit and my penis still worked.

    So, meh.

    _J_ on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    For all of you making the "there are medical benefits" argument:

    Let's see some citation. I want professional medical organizations that recommend routine circumcisions. I'd take, say, 3 reputable organizations that recommend it as proof that it's a debatable point. Otherwise, shut the fuck up about it.

    Thanatos on
  • NarianNarian Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Narian wrote: »
    No you don't understand. Getting circumcised can lead to complications during the procedure and that can 'mutilate' the infant. So you choose not to get circumcised alright. But you do realize that there can be problems later in life if you do not get circumcised? It has nothing to do with cleaning. Ever heard of Phimosis? Frenulum breve?
    So, while we're at it, why not remove the appendix, the tonsils, the extra kidney, extra lung, extra testicle, the extra part of the liver, the prostate... man, all that shit can cause problems later in life.

    So can leaving them all in. Just don't try to ban circumcisions because of the possible complications it can cause. It's a choice, either for religious or personal reasons, but it's a choice.

    Narian on
    Narian.gif
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Narian wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Narian wrote: »
    No you don't understand. Getting circumcised can lead to complications during the procedure and that can 'mutilate' the infant. So you choose not to get circumcised alright. But you do realize that there can be problems later in life if you do not get circumcised? It has nothing to do with cleaning. Ever heard of Phimosis? Frenulum breve?
    So, while we're at it, why not remove the appendix, the tonsils, the extra kidney, extra lung, extra testicle, the extra part of the liver, the prostate... man, all that shit can cause problems later in life.
    So can leaving them all in. Just don't try to ban circumcisions because of the possible complications it can cause. It's a choice, either for religious or personal reasons, but it's a choice.
    So is getting your child breast implants, and that's more easily reversible than circumcision.

    I'm not saying we should ban it because of the complications it can cause; I'm saying we should ban routine circumcision because there's no good reason to do it.

    Thanatos on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    geckahn wrote: »
    So being uncircumcised leads to loss of penis? I think you're confused at to what you wrote.

    I'm dyslexic, give me a break. :P

    Incenjucar on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Narian wrote: »
    So can leaving them all in. Just don't try to ban circumcisions because of the possible complications it can cause. It's a choice, either for religious or personal reasons, but it's a choice.

    So is denying your child medical attention so that you can pray at them.

    Incenjucar on
  • NarianNarian Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Narian wrote: »
    So can leaving them all in. Just don't try to ban circumcisions because of the possible complications it can cause. It's a choice, either for religious or personal reasons, but it's a choice.

    So is denying your child medical attention so that you can pray at them.

    Sad but true.

    Narian on
    Narian.gif
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    For all of you making the "there are medical benefits" argument:

    Let's see some citation. I want professional medical organizations that recommend routine circumcisions. I'd take, say, 3 reputable organizations that recommend it as proof that it's a debatable point. Otherwise, shut the fuck up about it.

    You don't recognize Judaism as a reputable organization?

    NAZI!

    _J_ on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Narian wrote: »
    Sad but true.

    You are at least consistent. :P

    Incenjucar on
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    For all of you making the "there are medical benefits" argument:

    Let's see some citation. I want professional medical organizations that recommend routine circumcisions. I'd take, say, 3 reputable organizations that recommend it as proof that it's a debatable point. Otherwise, shut the fuck up about it.

    You don't recognize Judaism as a reputable organization?

    NAZI!

    Judaism is a professional medical organization?

    geckahn on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    For all of you making the "there are medical benefits" argument:

    Let's see some citation. I want professional medical organizations that recommend routine circumcisions. I'd take, say, 3 reputable organizations that recommend it as proof that it's a debatable point. Otherwise, shut the fuck up about it.
    You don't recognize Judaism as a reputable organization?

    NAZI!
    I was referring to reputable medical organizations.

    And I consider Judaism every bit the medical authority that Christian Science is.

    Thanatos on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    geckahn wrote: »
    Judaism is a professional medical organization?

    Obviously. How can you question them with such great ideas as sucking baby penis blood?

    Incenjucar on
  • NarianNarian Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    ...because there's no good reason to do it.

    Is getting circumcised later in life more risky than when you are an infant? Is it easier to do at a young age? I'm serious.
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Narian wrote: »
    Sad but true.

    You are at least consistent. :P

    Look, if people want to follow their religion, no matter how fucked up it is, and they want to do stuff to their own bodies that effects only them, then really there's nothing we can do about that. :\

    Narian on
    Narian.gif
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2007
    Narian wrote: »
    Look, if people want to follow their religion, no matter how fucked up it is, and they want to do stuff to their own bodies that effects only them, then really there's nothing we can do about that. :\

    Their doing it to their kids, though.

    edit: And there are things we can do about it. If a parent refuses medical aid for their child the state can step in.

    I think.

    _J_ on
  • HozHoz Cool Cat Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    All this penis talk is making me thirsty.

    Hoz on
  • NarianNarian Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    Narian wrote: »
    Look, if people want to follow their religion, no matter how fucked up it is, and they want to do stuff to their own bodies that effects only them, then really there's nothing we can do about that. :\

    Their doing it to their kids, though.

    edit: And there are things we can do about it. If a parent refuses medical aid for their child the state can step in.

    I think.

    I'm pretty sure they can under certain circumstances. Though those circumstances are about child endangerment/abuse, and I do not think getting your child circumcised can really be classified under child endangerment because then you'd have to include ear piercings also.

    Narian on
    Narian.gif
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    Narian wrote: »
    Look, if people want to follow their religion, no matter how fucked up it is, and they want to do stuff to their own bodies that effects only them, then really there's nothing we can do about that. :\
    Their doing it to their kids, though.

    edit: And there are things we can do about it. If a parent refuses medical aid for their child the state can step in.

    I think.
    They can, and frequently do.

    Thanatos on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Narian wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    ...because there's no good reason to do it.

    Is getting circumcised later in life more risky than when you are an infant? Is it easier to do at a young age? I'm serious.

    http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html

    "The prevalence of penile adhesions declined with age, the investigators found. [That, or the incidence of penile adhesions has been increasing over the last 20 years.] All told, 71% of infants had adhesions compared with 28% of boys ages 1 to 5 years, 8% of those ages 5 to 9 years and 2% of older boys. About one third of infants had adhesions more severe than grade 1, compared with 10% of boys ages 1 to 5 years and none of the boys older than 5 years"

    Someone who actually has a medical background can better pick this stuff apart, but looks like weirder shit happens if you do it young.
    Narian wrote: »

    Look, if people want to follow their religion, no matter how fucked up it is, and they want to do stuff to their own bodies that effects only them, then really there's nothing we can do about that. :\

    That's fine with me.

    But a baby ceases to be part of its parent at least by the time the umbilical is cut.

    Incenjucar on
  • NarianNarian Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Narian wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    ...because there's no good reason to do it.

    Is getting circumcised later in life more risky than when you are an infant? Is it easier to do at a young age? I'm serious.

    http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html

    "The prevalence of penile adhesions declined with age, the investigators found. [That, or the incidence of penile adhesions has been increasing over the last 20 years.] All told, 71% of infants had adhesions compared with 28% of boys ages 1 to 5 years, 8% of those ages 5 to 9 years and 2% of older boys. About one third of infants had adhesions more severe than grade 1, compared with 10% of boys ages 1 to 5 years and none of the boys older than 5 years"

    Someone who actually has a medical background can better pick this stuff apart, but looks like weirder shit happens if you do it young.

    If I read the study correctly, that is the % of people who had adhesions after circumcison, and it also says most cases do not need intervention. Are there any studies done which show the % of 'failure' in circumcison later in life vs during infancy?

    Because if there's a lower risk % when you're older then I'd be all over having males wait until their a legal adult to have it done.

    Narian on
    Narian.gif
  • Prot3usProt3us Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    Prot3us wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    If anything, being circumcised makes you MORE sensitive. All the uncircumcised guys I know are assholes!

    edit: Still waiting for those statistics, Incenjucar. Just sounds like you're trying to "scare" me into an action here with your comment about penises accidentally getting cut off.

    Wow..just wow. HAHAHAHA.

    P.S Are you a girl? Just wondering.

    P.S.S Upon further reading of the thread i realize you are male Drez. Never mind my question. But honestly what the fuck?

    It's called humor.

    ...

    Prot3us on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Howsabout this: you can get your kid circumcised if you want, but any doctor performing a circumcision that isn't medically necessary loses his license to practice, for violating the Hippocratic Oath.

    I think that's only fair.

    Thanatos on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Narian wrote: »
    If I read the study correctly, that is the % of people who had adhesions after circumcison, and it also says most cases do not need intervention. Are there any studies done which show the % of 'failure' in circumcison later in life vs during infancy?

    Because if there's a lower risk % when you're older then I'd be all over having males wait until their a legal adult to have it done.

    I'm having difficulty finding a link to an actual study on that.

    Incenjucar on
  • NarianNarian Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Interesting.

    "Most cases of penile cancer occur in men over the age of 70.[144] Boczko and Freed (1979) stated that since Wolbarst's 1932 review, "there have been only eight documented cases of penile carcinoma in an individual circumcised in infancy." They described the ninth reported case, concluding that "performing it in infancy continues to be the most effective prophylactic measure against penile carcinoma."[145] The AMA remarked that in six case series published from 1932 and 1986, "all penile cancers occurred in uncircumcised individuals."[60] Maden et al (1993) reported that the risk of penile cancer was 3.2 times greater in men who were never circumcised and 3 times greater among those who were circumcised after the neonatal period.[146]"

    It would be interesting to see if this was 100% fact. Also, both David and Michael Benatar wrote an article(PDF) in the American Journal of Bioethics that said that "there are greater monetary and psychological costs in circumcising later rather than in infancy". Take it with a grain of salt though.
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Howsabout this: you can get your kid circumcised if you want, but any doctor performing a circumcision that isn't medically necessary loses his license to practice, for violating the Hippocratic Oath.

    I think that's only fair.

    Definately. Actually in Sweeden only persons certified by the National Board of Health to circumcise infants, requiring a medical doctor or an anesthesia nurse to accompany the circumciser and for anaesthetic to be applied beforehand. THe World Jewish Congress didn't like that because most doctors in Sweeden view circumcision as mutilation.

    Narian on
    Narian.gif
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    Narian wrote: »
    Interesting.

    "Most cases of penile cancer occur in men over the age of 70.[144] Boczko and Freed (1979) stated that since Wolbarst's 1932 review, "there have been only eight documented cases of penile carcinoma in an individual circumcised in infancy." They described the ninth reported case, concluding that "performing it in infancy continues to be the most effective prophylactic measure against penile carcinoma."[145] The AMA remarked that in six case series published from 1932 and 1986, "all penile cancers occurred in uncircumcised individuals."[60] Maden et al (1993) reported that the risk of penile cancer was 3.2 times greater in men who were never circumcised and 3 times greater among those who were circumcised after the neonatal period.[146]"

    It would be interesting to see if this was 100% fact. Also, both David and Michael Benatar wrote an article(PDF) in the American Journal of Bioethics that said that "there are greater monetary and psychological costs in circumcising later rather than in infancy". Take it with a grain of salt though.
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Howsabout this: you can get your kid circumcised if you want, but any doctor performing a circumcision that isn't medically necessary loses his license to practice, for violating the Hippocratic Oath.

    I think that's only fair.

    Definately. Actually in Sweeden only persons certified by the National Board of Health to circumcise infants, requiring a medical doctor or an anesthesia nurse to accompany the circumciser and for anaesthetic to be applied beforehand. THe World Jewish Congress didn't like that because most doctors in Sweeden view circumcision as mutilation.

    Permanently removing a piece of flesh distinctly altering the appearance of the body counts as mutilation now, huh? What's the world coming to?

    ViolentChemistry on
    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Permanently removing a piece of flesh distinctly altering the appearance of the body counts as mutilation now, huh? What's the world coming to?

    It's a little baby. That's what makes it mutilation. Shit, we're talking about doctors here. Not some fucking reactionary hippys.

    geckahn on
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    geckahn wrote: »
    Permanently removing a piece of flesh distinctly altering the appearance of the body counts as mutilation now, huh? What's the world coming to?

    It's a little baby. That's what makes it mutilation. Shit, we're talking about doctors here. Not some fucking reactionary hippys.

    *facepalm*

    ViolentChemistry on
    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    geckahn wrote: »
    Permanently removing a piece of flesh distinctly altering the appearance of the body counts as mutilation now, huh? What's the world coming to?

    It's a little baby. That's what makes it mutilation. Shit, we're talking about doctors here. Not some fucking reactionary hippys.

    *facepalm*

    Look, I don't give a shit if people circumcise their kids. I strongly disagree with it and there is no way in hell it's happening to any of my kids, but I'm not of the opinion that we should ban it. Just strongly discourage it.

    But it is fucked up. and if a doctor considers a medically unnecessary operation that is incredibly painful to a newborn child to be mutilation, who am i to fucking argue.

    geckahn on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    geckahn wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    Permanently removing a piece of flesh distinctly altering the appearance of the body counts as mutilation now, huh? What's the world coming to?
    It's a little baby. That's what makes it mutilation. Shit, we're talking about doctors here. Not some fucking reactionary hippys.
    *facepalm*
    Look, I don't give a shit if people circumcise their kids. I strongly disagree with it and there is no way in hell it's happening to any of my kids, but I'm not of the opinion that we should ban it. Just strongly discourage it.

    But it is fucked up. and if a doctor considers a medically unnecessary operation that is incredibly painful to a newborn child to be mutilation, who am i to fucking argue.
    There's this new thing called "sarcasm." You might want to check it out.

    Thanatos on
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    Not only are you completely oblivious to what's going on around you, but have no idea what constitutes mutilation.
    Secret tips! Age of patient is irrelevant, adults can be mutilated too!

    ViolentChemistry on
    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Howsabout this: you can get your kid circumcised if you want, but any doctor performing a circumcision that isn't medically necessary loses his license to practice, for violating the Hippocratic Oath.

    I think that's only fair.

    Although, many people would want to use doctors since they know more about what is going down down there, and they would be able to realize if something is terribly wrong, and what to do if something goes terribly wrong.

    Picardathon on
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Narian wrote: »
    So can leaving them all in. Just don't try to ban circumcisions because of the possible complications it can cause. It's a choice, either for religious or personal reasons, but it's a choice.

    So is denying your child medical attention so that you can pray at them.

    Denying a child medical service does not equal circumcision.
    In fact, those are to each other what vaccines are to circumcisions.
    I made a post equating the two earlier in the thread, please don't infract me!

    Picardathon on
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Narian wrote: »
    So can leaving them all in. Just don't try to ban circumcisions because of the possible complications it can cause. It's a choice, either for religious or personal reasons, but it's a choice.

    So is denying your child medical attention so that you can pray at them.

    Denying a child medical service does not equal circumcision.
    In fact, those are to each other what vaccines are to circumcisions.
    I made a post equating the two earlier in the thread, please don't infract me!

    Denying a child medical service : circumcision :: vaccines : circumcision? That explains so many of your posts...

    ViolentChemistry on
    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Narian wrote: »
    So can leaving them all in. Just don't try to ban circumcisions because of the possible complications it can cause. It's a choice, either for religious or personal reasons, but it's a choice.

    So is denying your child medical attention so that you can pray at them.

    Denying a child medical service does not equal circumcision.
    In fact, those are to each other what vaccines are to circumcisions.
    I made a post equating the two earlier in the thread, please don't infract me!

    Denying a child medical service : circumcision :: vaccines : circumcision? That explains so many of your posts...

    As in, neither makes sense.

    Picardathon on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Denying a child medical service does not equal circumcision.
    In fact, those are to each other what vaccines are to circumcisions.
    I made a post equating the two earlier in the thread, please don't infract me!

    Yeah gee I hadn't thought of that it's too bad I wasn't addressing a specific poster's opinion rather than the overall stance because then I wouldn't feel like such a dumbass.

    Incenjucar on
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Narian wrote: »
    So can leaving them all in. Just don't try to ban circumcisions because of the possible complications it can cause. It's a choice, either for religious or personal reasons, but it's a choice.

    So is denying your child medical attention so that you can pray at them.

    Denying a child medical service does not equal circumcision.
    In fact, those are to each other what vaccines are to circumcisions.
    I made a post equating the two earlier in the thread, please don't infract me!

    Denying a child medical service : circumcision :: vaccines : circumcision? That explains so many of your posts...

    As in, neither comparison makes sense.
    The second one I posted earlier in the thread, and the comparison was a bit silly and was rejected by everyone in the thread.
    The first one doesn't make sense because denying a child medical service almost certainly will cause harm to the child, while the other one only has a small percentage of possible complications, none of which are permanent (Aside from the foreskin removal.)

    Picardathon on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    The method is about removing particular excuses one by one.

    "It's their religion."

    "It's their child, so it doesn't get to decide."

    "It's commonly accepted."

    Etc etc.

    Incenjucar on
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Narian wrote: »
    So can leaving them all in. Just don't try to ban circumcisions because of the possible complications it can cause. It's a choice, either for religious or personal reasons, but it's a choice.

    So is denying your child medical attention so that you can pray at them.

    Denying a child medical service does not equal circumcision.
    In fact, those are to each other what vaccines are to circumcisions.
    I made a post equating the two earlier in the thread, please don't infract me!

    Denying a child medical service : circumcision :: vaccines : circumcision? That explains so many of your posts...

    As in, neither makes sense.

    Yeah, pretty much. Neither your analogy nor most of your posts make any sense. However allowing parents to deny their child medical attention for religious reasons isn't that far off from allowing parents to force their child to recieve unnecessary mutilitatory surgery for religious reasons. Both are social-justification for ignoring the hippocratic oath.

    ViolentChemistry on
    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • MrMisterMrMister A pup must first get in the water to be successful as a seal!Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Drama whores. Was I mutilated when I got my tonsils out? Stop using emotive language, as if all you need to say here is "they're mutilating a baby"

    I don't even agree with the practice, yet I feel compelled to pop back in every few pages to rain on the retarded parade.

    MrMister on
  • MrMisterMrMister A pup must first get in the water to be successful as a seal!Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    That said, you have to recognize that people are generally more attached to the fleshy bits between their legs than they are to the fleshy bits in the back of the throat. If I snapped a picture of you with your mouth open and your uvula hanging visibly and posted it online, I don't think you'd feel nearly as violated as you would if I managed to post a picture taken of you with fly open and your penis hanging out while you were going to the bathroom.

    So while I'm not arguing that it's a violation, I do understand why somebody might feel that way.

    Oh, I understand why someone might feel that way--I just think that their feeling is baseless and counter-productive.

    MrMister on
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Narian wrote: »
    So can leaving them all in. Just don't try to ban circumcisions because of the possible complications it can cause. It's a choice, either for religious or personal reasons, but it's a choice.

    So is denying your child medical attention so that you can pray at them.

    Denying a child medical service does not equal circumcision.
    In fact, those are to each other what vaccines are to circumcisions.
    I made a post equating the two earlier in the thread, please don't infract me!

    Denying a child medical service : circumcision :: vaccines : circumcision? That explains so many of your posts...

    As in, neither makes sense.

    Yeah, pretty much. Neither your analogy nor most of your posts make any sense. However allowing parents to deny their child medical attention for religious reasons isn't that far off from allowing parents to force their child to recieve unnecessary mutilitatory surgery for religious reasons. Both are social-justification for ignoring the hippocratic oath.

    Although circumcisions would technically violate the hippocratic oath because they could possibly create some complications (which can be fixed), the two are entirely different in actual terms.
    Simply enough, if you deny a child medical attention, then that kid is probably going to die. The possiblility of having complications at all is 2-10%, and I doubt that the percentage of any actual harm being done is about 1%. The chance of a child being harmed if they are not treated is probably around 99%.

    Picardathon on
This discussion has been closed.