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

11617182022

Posts

  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    MrMister wrote: »
    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.

    I'm just noting that technically, that's all it is. The only real point is to cut on the baby to alter the appearance. It sure as fuck doesn't prevent cancer. Correllation/causation error, seek lurking variables.

    ViolentChemistry on
    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • RandomEngyRandomEngy Registered User 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.

    Meta-study linked earlier that shows that "circumcised men are at lower risk of syphilis and chancroid"

    1/3 risk of penile cancer: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. The American Medical Association (AMA), American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association of Family Physicians, Royal Australasian College of Physicians and Canadian Paediatric Society all state that circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer.

    The AMA also says "There is little doubt that the uncircumcised infant is at higher risk for urinary tract infection (UTI)." Study with randomized, controlled trials shows that UTI risk is less with circumcision. And more studies: 1, 2, 3. It's about a 12-fold decrease in infection rates. Note that you cannot blame correlation/causation here because they are randomly dividing people into experimental and control groups finding repeated, statistically significant differences.

    And an article from the New England Journal of Medicine that concludes that "Male circumcision is associated with a reduced risk of penile HPV infection and, in the case of men with a history of multiple sexual partners, a reduced risk of cervical cancer in their current female partners." More studies supporting lower incidence of HPV: 1, 2.

    So everyone can just shut their stupid mouths about there being "no medical benefits." I'm going to cockpunch the next person who makes a snarky, ignorant comment about circumcision being "just like having your kid's ears clipped." The real question is, do the benefits outweigh the cost and potential complications?

    Complication rates are between 0.2% and 0.6%, with most of the complications being minor.

    The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that due to the evidence that it reduces UTI, penile cancer and STDs, the parents make the decision after being informed of benefits and risks. Every other reputable medical organization I've found says basically the same thing.

    Oh and it's not some traumatic, painful event. It's a very routine, safe procedure and pain relief is given. Furthermore, post neonatal circumcision is much more difficult and expensive.

    So what do I think? Not having your child circumcised is a perfectly reasonable choice, but it's also fine to have your child circumcised. It's not worth getting upset about having been circumcised, and going on some sort of crusade against the practice is just stupid.

    RandomEngy on
    Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited July 2007
    MrMister wrote: »
    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.

    I'm just noting that technically, that's all it is. The only real point is to cut on the baby to alter the appearance. It sure as fuck doesn't prevent cancer. Correllation/causation error, seek lurking variables.

    I understand that it doesn't have much tangible benefit, but I don't see much tangible harm.
    There's the pain that they wont remember, there's some complications that aren't perfect and easily solvable by surgery, and some people believe that its unnatural and go through tremendous amounts of pain, but thats less than .1% of people who get circumcised.
    I'm not saying that we should go around getting everyone circumcised, but perhaps we should leave people alone and let the parents do what they want.

    Picardathon on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    So what do I think? Not having your child circumcised is a perfectly reasonable choice, but it's also fine to have your child circumcised. It's not worth getting upset about having been circumcised, and going on some sort of crusade against the practice is just stupid.
    At this point, your post fails and you also miss the point of the moral argument being made (hint: exactly 1 of those studies is actually about a condition relevant to the problem at hand).

    EDIT:
    OBJECTIVE: To analyze our series and review the prognostic factors in the treatment of epidermoid carcinoma of the penis. METHODS: Age, time to consultation, circumcision, form of presentation, local treatment, tumor stage and grade, lymph node involvement and outcome were analyzed in 27 cases of carcinoma of the penis diagnosed at our hospital from 1981 to 1999. RESULTS: The incidence rate was 1.8 cases/100,000 men/year. No patient had been circumcised, except one who was circumcised in the adult age. The median time to consultation was 24 months (interquartile range: 60-7.75). The median follow-up was 37 months (interquartile range: 84-12). All patients with pT1GI-II and pT2G-II primary tumor (n = 21; 78% of the series) and with no lymphadenopathy were disease-free at 6 months' minimum follow-up [17 of the 21 patients (81%) had more than 32 months' follow-up]. Only one patient with pT1-GII tumor, but with a vertical growth pattern, had positive inguinal lymph nodes (pN2). The remaining patients with lymph node involvement showed infiltration of the erectile tissue and moderately or poorly differentiated tumors. Only two prophylactic lymphadenectomy procedures were performed (pN0). Regardless of treatment, 5 of the 6 patients with lymph node involvement died within one year after diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: OBJECTIVE: To analyze our series and review the prognostic factors in the treatment of epidermoid carcinoma of the penis. METHODS: Age, time to consultation, circumcision, form of presentation, local treatment, tumor stage and grade, lymph node involvement and outcome were analyzed in 27 cases of carcinoma of the penis diagnosed at our hospital from 1981 to 1999. RESULTS: The incidence rate was 1.8 cases/100,000 men/year. No patient had been circumcised, except one who was circumcised in the adult age. The median time to consultation was 24 months (interquartile range: 60-7.75). The median follow-up was 37 months (interquartile range: 84-12). All patients with pT1GI-II and pT2G-II primary tumor (n = 21; 78% of the series) and with no lymphadenopathy were disease-free at 6 months' minimum follow-up [17 of the 21 patients (81%) had more than 32 months' follow-up]. Only one patient with pT1-GII tumor, but with a vertical growth pattern, had positive inguinal lymph nodes (pN2). The remaining patients with lymph node involvement showed infiltration of the erectile tissue and moderately or poorly differentiated tumors. Only two prophylactic lymphadenectomy procedures were performed (pN0). Regardless of treatment, 5 of the 6 patients with lymph node involvement died within one year after diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Given the demonstrated relationship between carcinoma of the penis and hygiene, and phimosis which makes hygiene difficult, circumcision should be performed in childhood. Furthermore, circumcision at this age has been demonstrated to have a prophylactic value that disappears in the adult age., and phimosis which makes hygiene difficult, circumcision should be performed in childhood. Furthermore, circumcision at this age has been demonstrated to have a prophylactic value that disappears in the adult age.

    So, get this - given the relationship between cancer and hygiene and that this can be hindered if a relatively uncommon medical condition is present, we should circumcise all children. That is the stupidest fucking conclusion ever.

    EDIT 2: What I'm saying is, you've linked a bunch of stuff and I'm all "wow" but when I start going through it holy crap are the conclusions retarded.

    EDIT 3: This study I find relevant because it's for Western Australia -
    OBJECTIVE: To investigate the incidence rate of circumcision for phimosis and other medically indicated reasons in Western Australian boys from 1 January 1981 to 31 December 1999.

    DESIGN AND SETTING: A population-based incidence study using hospital discharge data of all circumcisions performed in all WA hospitals during the study period.

    MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in the incidence rate of circumcision for medically indicated reasons.

    RESULTS: The rate of medically indicated circumcisions increased in boys aged less than 15 years during the study period. Phimosis was the most common medical indication for circumcision in all age groups. The rate of circumcision associated with phimosis was eight times that associated with balanoposthitis and 21 times that of balanitis xerotica obliterans. Boys aged less than five years had the highest rate of circumcision to treat phimosis, at 4.6 per 1000 person-years, representing about 300 circumcisions per year. Boys aged less than five years living in country areas were 1.5 times more likely to be circumcised for phimosis than boys living in metropolitan Perth.

    CONCLUSION: The rate of circumcision to treat phimosis in boys aged less than 15 years is seven times the expected incidence rate for phimosis. Many boys are circumcised before reaching five years of age, despite phimosis being rare in this age group.

    electricitylikesme on
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User
    edited July 2007
    RandomEngy wrote: »

    So everyone can just shut their stupid mouths about there being "no medical benefits." I'm going to cockpunch the next person who makes a snarky, ignorant comment about circumcision being "just like having your kid's ears clipped." The real question is, do the benefits outweigh the cost and potential complications?

    Let's clip the ears off half of America's babies, and see what it does to ear infection rates.
    Punch away, baby. I've got a protective layer of skin.

    Okay, no, to not be snarky. The reason for this observation is that no one has their son circumcised because of the medical benefits. If you had just had a child, and the doctor came in asking you if you wanted your child's earlobes removed, as it can reduce the risk of ear infections by thirteen percent, you'd be all, the fuck? Where is my real doctor?

    That's the reason for the comparison. The reason infants are circumcised is that it is culturally accepted. The medical benefits are after the fact rationalizations.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Adrien wrote: »
    RandomEngy wrote: »

    So everyone can just shut their stupid mouths about there being "no medical benefits." I'm going to cockpunch the next person who makes a snarky, ignorant comment about circumcision being "just like having your kid's ears clipped." The real question is, do the benefits outweigh the cost and potential complications?

    Let's clip the ears off half of America's babies, and see what it does to ear infection rates.
    Punch away, baby. I've got a protective layer of skin.
    So, you're admitting that the foreskin is the clear cause of an infection?
    Lets compare that to the benefits, which include...easier fapping.
    I understand that the infection can be eliminated with hygeine, but considering the paranoia of parents they probably think that they're better safe then sorry (As well as some of the other, sillier reasons.)

    Picardathon on
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Huh?

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    FCD wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Or you could not have it done, giving them the option to decide later, rather than having it done, leaving them with no option whatsoever. Gee, tough call, here; what makes more sense? Hmmmm...
    I dunno, doesn't seem that tough to me. I trust parents to do what they think is right, and although you are denying a person a choice, you are also lessening the repercussions of one of the choices. Yeah, if you ban circumcision, suddenly you're find that less and less people are circumcised and it'll stop being the norm. Most men won't exactly look forward to having their wang cut on when they're adults.

    Nice false dichotomy here, btw. No one is saying we should ban it, only that we shouldn't force it on infants without a compelling medical reason. If an adult chooses to have the procedure done, that's entirely their right as someone old enough to consent to it.

    Oh, really?
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    *snip*

    I for one, am all for infringing upon so called religious rights to religious rites.

    *snip*
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    I think that this thread has missed a fundamental issue.

    Kellog was a fuck.

    Religious stuff sucks.

    The fact that it would thwart oppressive religious agendas should be enough to support its ban.

    Alternatively: Should we even allow ritualistic circumcision?

    If we are going to be involved in this practice, should we or should we not demand that it is done under specific controlled circumstances by real medical professionals?

    What I'm saying is how should we treat the issues of freedom of religious expression? My position is obvious, of course. What do youse guyses and girlses think?

    And he wasn't alone in either stating or implying the position.

    Please, don't speak for the entire thread if you haven't comprehensively researched it. A number of people most certainly did suggest that the practice be banned.

    God Drez, sometimes I forget that you're a hack, then I'm shocked by how much of a hack you are.

    My first post was explicitly about ritual circumcism, where a non-medical professional hacks away at the baby. Jews.

    The second was again, mainly about ritual circumcision. However, the first part where I discussed Kellog and religious agendas I was supporting the ban of circumcision by default and under the auspices of parents. If people want to get circumcised or there's a pressing medical need I would hardly be opposed. Though in the former case, I would call the guy names.

    Apothe0sis on
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
    Es-annon NEVA 4GET
  • HF-kunHF-kun __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    Adrien wrote: »
    RandomEngy wrote: »

    So everyone can just shut their stupid mouths about there being "no medical benefits." I'm going to cockpunch the next person who makes a snarky, ignorant comment about circumcision being "just like having your kid's ears clipped." The real question is, do the benefits outweigh the cost and potential complications?

    Let's clip the ears off half of America's babies, and see what it does to ear infection rates.
    Punch away, baby. I've got a protective layer of skin.

    Okay, no, to not be snarky. The reason for this observation is that no one has their son circumcised because of the medical benefits.

    What...? Actually as a nurse practitioner, my mother believed in the medical benefits that RandomEngy pointed out, not to mention what she's encountered through her medical career. I'm still in shock over the fact that the anti-circumcision side conveniently ignores these figures and statistics in the same way Pat Robertson ignores evidence in favor of evolution.

    HF-kun on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    "I want my baby to have breast implants. Everyone's doing it. I don't want to be a weird parent."

    "You shouldn't do that, the surgery has a small chance of harming them."

    "Hey, it could improve her, um.. er... social prospects, yeah, that's it!"

    "...Is that why you want it done...?"

    "Yeah, sure. It is now."

    Incenjucar on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    FCD wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Or you could not have it done, giving them the option to decide later, rather than having it done, leaving them with no option whatsoever. Gee, tough call, here; what makes more sense? Hmmmm...
    I dunno, doesn't seem that tough to me. I trust parents to do what they think is right, and although you are denying a person a choice, you are also lessening the repercussions of one of the choices. Yeah, if you ban circumcision, suddenly you're find that less and less people are circumcised and it'll stop being the norm. Most men won't exactly look forward to having their wang cut on when they're adults.

    Nice false dichotomy here, btw. No one is saying we should ban it, only that we shouldn't force it on infants without a compelling medical reason. If an adult chooses to have the procedure done, that's entirely their right as someone old enough to consent to it.

    Oh, really?
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    *snip*

    I for one, am all for infringing upon so called religious rights to religious rites.

    *snip*
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    I think that this thread has missed a fundamental issue.

    Kellog was a fuck.

    Religious stuff sucks.

    The fact that it would thwart oppressive religious agendas should be enough to support its ban.

    Alternatively: Should we even allow ritualistic circumcision?

    If we are going to be involved in this practice, should we or should we not demand that it is done under specific controlled circumstances by real medical professionals?

    What I'm saying is how should we treat the issues of freedom of religious expression? My position is obvious, of course. What do youse guyses and girlses think?

    And he wasn't alone in either stating or implying the position.

    Please, don't speak for the entire thread if you haven't comprehensively researched it. A number of people most certainly did suggest that the practice be banned.

    God Drez, sometimes I forget that you're a hack, then I'm shocked by how much of a hack you are.

    My first post was explicitly about ritual circumcism, where a non-medical professional hacks away at the baby. Jews.

    The second was again, mainly about ritual circumcision. However, the first part where I discussed Kellog and religious agendas I was supporting the ban of circumcision by default and under the auspices of parents. If people want to get circumcised or there's a pressing medical need I would hardly be opposed. Though in the former case, I would call the guy names.

    Oh shut the fuck up. You came in here as the most obnoxious crusader against "religious rites," which is so far off topic you might as well be posting at 4chan (i.e. another forum).

    Drez on
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    So, I take it that's confirmation that you perversely misrepresent others' positions because that's just how you roll?

    Apothe0sis on
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
    Es-annon NEVA 4GET
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User
    edited July 2007
    HF-kun wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    RandomEngy wrote: »

    So everyone can just shut their stupid mouths about there being "no medical benefits." I'm going to cockpunch the next person who makes a snarky, ignorant comment about circumcision being "just like having your kid's ears clipped." The real question is, do the benefits outweigh the cost and potential complications?

    Let's clip the ears off half of America's babies, and see what it does to ear infection rates.
    Punch away, baby. I've got a protective layer of skin.

    Okay, no, to not be snarky. The reason for this observation is that no one has their son circumcised because of the medical benefits.

    What...? Actually as a nurse practitioner, my mother believed in the medical benefits that RandomEngy pointed out, not to mention what she's encountered through her medical career. I'm still in shock over the fact that the anti-circumcision side conveniently ignores these figures and statistics in the same way Pat Robertson ignores evidence in favor of evolution.

    The whole point is that the statistics, being marginal as they are, are irrelevant. There are any number of elective surgical procedures you could perform on a baby to slightly lessen his chance of illnesses later on in life. Why is one of these things not like the other?

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    So, I take it that's confirmation that you perversely misrepresent others' permissions because that's just how you roll?

    I'm not misrepresenting you.
    I think that this thread has missed a fundamental issue.

    Kellog was a fuck.

    Religious stuff sucks.

    The fact that it would thwart oppressive religious agendas should be enough to support its ban.

    I would have reported this for blatant trolling had I thought it would go anywhere. You only seem to post when you can somehow fit the post/topic into your anti-religious agenda.

    Drez on
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    So, I take it that's confirmation that you perversely misrepresent others' permissions because that's just how you roll?

    I'm not misrepresenting you.

    Mmm, yeah, you were. He was saying that ritual circumcision of infants should be banned, you presented it as saying that the procedure should be banned full stop.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Alright, I reread it, and I'll concede that I either misread what FCD was saying about the false dichotomy or what Apothe0sis was saying. I don't remember anymore. My other point still stands: the whole "trampling on religious rites" thing is just annoying.

    But I apologize for the misrepresentation, Apo.

    Drez on
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    "I want my baby to have breast implants. Everyone's doing it. I don't want to be a weird parent."

    "You shouldn't do that, the surgery has a small chance of harming them."

    "Hey, it could improve her, um.. er... social prospects, yeah, that's it!"

    "...Is that why you want it done...?"

    "Yeah, sure. It is now."

    You insult my analogies and then make ones that are just as retarded.
    We already have an anecdote of someone in this thread who got circumcised because of the medical benefits, and can thus infer that their mother saw more horror stories from people who weren't circumcised and got an infection then from people who were circumcised and got permanent damage (assuming the latter exists.)
    Could you please provide some evidence that proves that "Because everyone else is doing it." that parents get their children circumcised?

    Picardathon on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Could you please provide some evidence that proves that "Because everyone else is doing it." that parents get their children circumcised?

    This thread is full of anecdotes to that effect.

    Incenjucar on
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Could you please provide some evidence that proves that "Because everyone else is doing it." that parents get their children circumcised?

    This thread is full of anecdotes to that effect.

    By which I think you mean that there are alot of appeals to tradition in the thread.
    This is true, yes, but how id the small percentage of people circumcising grow into a large percentage (If not a majority) of US males when there was no tradition to be beholden too? I think that it would be paranoia about your kid not washing his foreskin and getting infected, and although that isn't the greatest reason, its better then peer pressure, whoever those peers may be.

    Picardathon on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    I realize you can't edit, but can you rephrase that? Your grammatical errors are a bit hard to get through, and I don't want to mistake what you're saying for something else.

    Incenjucar on
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    I realize you can't edit, but can you rephrase that? Your grammatical errors are a bit hard to get through, and I don't want to mistake what you're saying for something else.

    There are quite a few appeals to tradition in this thread.
    This seems to be the most cited, and most ridiculed, reason for circumcision.
    But if the main reason for circumcision is an appeal to tradition, then how did circumcision become a common practice? If you are not Jewish, Muslim, or of a certain branch of the Christian church, then why do it? It can't just be "Because its common" because circumcision outside of specific religions had to start somewhere.
    I believe that the medical benefits of circumcision, however small they may be, provide this reason.
    tldr: If the reason is "because everyone else does it", why did everyone else start doing it?

    Picardathon on
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Regarding phimosis, it can frequently be solved through non-surgical means.


    I did it myself.

    geckahn on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    RandomEngy 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.

    Meta-study linked earlier that shows that "circumcised men are at lower risk of syphilis and chancroid"

    1/3 risk of penile cancer: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. The American Medical Association (AMA), American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association of Family Physicians, Royal Australasian College of Physicians and Canadian Paediatric Society all state that circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer.

    The AMA also says "There is little doubt that the uncircumcised infant is at higher risk for urinary tract infection (UTI)." Study with randomized, controlled trials shows that UTI risk is less with circumcision. And more studies: 1, 2, 3. It's about a 12-fold decrease in infection rates. Note that you cannot blame correlation/causation here because they are randomly dividing people into experimental and control groups finding repeated, statistically significant differences.

    And an article from the New England Journal of Medicine that concludes that "Male circumcision is associated with a reduced risk of penile HPV infection and, in the case of men with a history of multiple sexual partners, a reduced risk of cervical cancer in their current female partners." More studies supporting lower incidence of HPV: 1, 2.

    So everyone can just shut their stupid mouths about there being "no medical benefits." I'm going to cockpunch the next person who makes a snarky, ignorant comment about circumcision being "just like having your kid's ears clipped." The real question is, do the benefits outweigh the cost and potential complications?

    Complication rates are between 0.2% and 0.6%, with most of the complications being minor.

    The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that due to the evidence that it reduces UTI, penile cancer and STDs, the parents make the decision after being informed of benefits and risks. Every other reputable medical organization I've found says basically the same thing.

    Oh and it's not some traumatic, painful event. It's a very routine, safe procedure and pain relief is given. Furthermore, post neonatal circumcision is much more difficult and expensive.

    So what do I think? Not having your child circumcised is a perfectly reasonable choice, but it's also fine to have your child circumcised. It's not worth getting upset about having been circumcised, and going on some sort of crusade against the practice is just stupid.
    So, what you're saying is that there is no professional organization that recommends circumcision when not medically necessary?

    Thank you for reiterating my point.

    Thanatos on
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    I know for a fact that the AMA and AAP do not recommend it.

    geckahn on
  • KungFuKungFu Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    I wasn't circumcised, but the idea that my frenulum might be breve, or short, scares me. I can pull back my foreskin past the head, but it doesn't really stay. It doesn't hurt (just feels weird). I think my frenulum just retracts the foreskin back over the head when I let go.

    The idea that this can rip during intercourse and ruin a good time is horrifying.

    KungFu on
    Theft 4 Bread
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    RandomEngy 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.

    Meta-study linked earlier that shows that "circumcised men are at lower risk of syphilis and chancroid"

    1/3 risk of penile cancer: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. The American Medical Association (AMA), American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association of Family Physicians, Royal Australasian College of Physicians and Canadian Paediatric Society all state that circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer.

    The AMA also says "There is little doubt that the uncircumcised infant is at higher risk for urinary tract infection (UTI)." Study with randomized, controlled trials shows that UTI risk is less with circumcision. And more studies: 1, 2, 3. It's about a 12-fold decrease in infection rates. Note that you cannot blame correlation/causation here because they are randomly dividing people into experimental and control groups finding repeated, statistically significant differences.

    And an article from the New England Journal of Medicine that concludes that "Male circumcision is associated with a reduced risk of penile HPV infection and, in the case of men with a history of multiple sexual partners, a reduced risk of cervical cancer in their current female partners." More studies supporting lower incidence of HPV: 1, 2.

    So everyone can just shut their stupid mouths about there being "no medical benefits." I'm going to cockpunch the next person who makes a snarky, ignorant comment about circumcision being "just like having your kid's ears clipped." The real question is, do the benefits outweigh the cost and potential complications?

    Complication rates are between 0.2% and 0.6%, with most of the complications being minor.

    The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that due to the evidence that it reduces UTI, penile cancer and STDs, the parents make the decision after being informed of benefits and risks. Every other reputable medical organization I've found says basically the same thing.

    Oh and it's not some traumatic, painful event. It's a very routine, safe procedure and pain relief is given. Furthermore, post neonatal circumcision is much more difficult and expensive.

    So what do I think? Not having your child circumcised is a perfectly reasonable choice, but it's also fine to have your child circumcised. It's not worth getting upset about having been circumcised, and going on some sort of crusade against the practice is just stupid.
    So, what you're saying is that there is no professional organization that recommends circumcision when not medically necessary?

    Thank you for reiterating my point.
    Of course, circumcision after age 20 is not as beneficial.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10199231&dopt=AbstractPlus
    Look at the conclusions section.
    Also, considering the evidence, how do you have a prepubescent circumcision that isn't at least somewhat medically beneficial.

    Picardathon on
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    KungFu wrote: »
    I wasn't circumcised, but the idea that my frenulum might be breve, or short, scares me. I can pull back my foreskin past the head, but it doesn't really stay. It doesn't hurt (just feels weird). I think my frenulum just retracts the foreskin back over the head when I let go.

    The idea that this can rip during intercourse and ruin a good time is horrifying.

    you can make the foreskin not tight. Just stretch it every morning in the shower for like . . . a minute. Should be all good in a few weeks. And it stays good.

    geckahn on
  • Bliss 101Bliss 101 Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    I realize you can't edit, but can you rephrase that? Your grammatical errors are a bit hard to get through, and I don't want to mistake what you're saying for something else.

    There are quite a few appeals to tradition in this thread.
    This seems to be the most cited, and most ridiculed, reason for circumcision.
    But if the main reason for circumcision is an appeal to tradition, then how did circumcision become a common practice? If you are not Jewish, Muslim, or of a certain branch of the Christian church, then why do it? It can't just be "Because its common" because circumcision outside of specific religions had to start somewhere.
    I believe that the medical benefits of circumcision, however small they may be, provide this reason.
    tldr: If the reason is "because everyone else does it", why did everyone else start doing it?

    I'm not sure exactly how significant Kellogg's contribution was, but I'm under the impression that views similar to his played a major role in circumcision becoming so common in America.
    Kellogg wrote:
    Neither the plague, nor war, nor small-pox, nor similar diseases, have produced results so disastrous to humanity as the pernicious habit of onanism.
    [snip]
    A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment. In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid [phenol] to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement.

    Bliss 101 on
    MSL59.jpg
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    kellogg was so fucked up.

    but yeah, thats how it got started.

    all the given reasons since then have basically been excuses to keep it going.

    I hope everyone here realizes that like nobody in europe gets a circumcision. I don't see them dropping dead of penile cancer left and right.

    geckahn on
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Gosh darnit, using "of course", made me sound snooty, but I can't edit my post.
    um, sorry.
    :oops:

    Picardathon on
  • KungFuKungFu Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    geckahn wrote: »
    KungFu wrote: »
    I wasn't circumcised, but the idea that my frenulum might be breve, or short, scares me. I can pull back my foreskin past the head, but it doesn't really stay. It doesn't hurt (just feels weird). I think my frenulum just retracts the foreskin back over the head when I let go.

    The idea that this can rip during intercourse and ruin a good time is horrifying.

    you can make the foreskin not tight. Just stretch it every morning in the shower for like . . . a minute. Should be all good in a few weeks. And it stays good.

    I don't know, I see my freunulum and it looks kind of tight.

    KungFu on
    Theft 4 Bread
  • GlyphGlyph Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Bliss 101 wrote: »
    I'm not sure exactly how significant Kellogg's contribution was, but I'm under the impression that views similar to his played a major role in circumcision becoming so common in America.
    Kellogg wrote:
    Neither the plague, nor war, nor small-pox, nor similar diseases, have produced results so disastrous to humanity as the pernicious habit of onanism.
    [snip]
    A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment. In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid [phenol] to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement.

    Christ.

    Glyph on
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    KungFu wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    KungFu wrote: »
    I wasn't circumcised, but the idea that my frenulum might be breve, or short, scares me. I can pull back my foreskin past the head, but it doesn't really stay. It doesn't hurt (just feels weird). I think my frenulum just retracts the foreskin back over the head when I let go.

    The idea that this can rip during intercourse and ruin a good time is horrifying.

    you can make the foreskin not tight. Just stretch it every morning in the shower for like . . . a minute. Should be all good in a few weeks. And it stays good.

    I don't know, I see my freunulum and it looks kind of tight.

    Yeah, I don't really have any advice on that. A quick search tells me theres a simple operation to get it taken care of. You dont need a circumcision. My foreskin advice holds though. You know the tendon thingy at the end of your foreskin? thats what you need to stretch.

    geckahn on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Of course, circumcision after age 20 is not as beneficial.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10199231&dopt=AbstractPlus
    Look at the conclusions section.
    Also, considering the evidence, how do you have a prepubescent circumcision that isn't at least somewhat medically beneficial.
    If the benefits outweigh the downsides so much, you should have no problem finding a few reputable professional medical organizations who highly recommend doing routine circumcisions.

    I await your list with bated breath.

    Thanatos on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    I realize you can't edit, but can you rephrase that? Your grammatical errors are a bit hard to get through, and I don't want to mistake what you're saying for something else.

    There are quite a few appeals to tradition in this thread.
    This seems to be the most cited, and most ridiculed, reason for circumcision.

    Yes. Due to tradition having a long history of being used to excuse horrible acts as well as simply unwise acts as in this topic.

    Appeals to tradition simply do not hold water.
    But if the main reason for circumcision is an appeal to tradition, then how did circumcision become a common practice? If you are not Jewish, Muslim, or of a certain branch of the Christian church, then why do it?

    As has been noted, it may be due to the Victorian era's anti-sexual fad. After that it's just inertia. It's like the whole "Bless you!" thing when someone sneezes, or "When you die you become an angel!" People just pass it on because it's how they were raised.
    It can't just be "Because its common" because circumcision outside of specific religions had to start somewhere.

    Cultures share ideas, and those ideas spread. See: Anime.
    I believe that the medical benefits of circumcision, however small they may be, provide this reason.

    And I believe that the risks and the violation of personal integrity far outweigh waiting a few years for the kid to be old enough to make an irreversible decision regarding their own bodies.
    tldr: If the reason is "because everyone else does it", why did everyone else start doing it?

    Because people will do just about anything if you present it right.

    Incenjucar on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    I believe that the medical benefits of circumcision, however small they may be, provide this reason.
    This is like how the medical benefits of corn are why we subsidize it so much, right?

    Thanatos on
  • KungFuKungFu Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    geckahn wrote: »
    KungFu wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    KungFu wrote: »
    I wasn't circumcised, but the idea that my frenulum might be breve, or short, scares me. I can pull back my foreskin past the head, but it doesn't really stay. It doesn't hurt (just feels weird). I think my frenulum just retracts the foreskin back over the head when I let go.

    The idea that this can rip during intercourse and ruin a good time is horrifying.

    you can make the foreskin not tight. Just stretch it every morning in the shower for like . . . a minute. Should be all good in a few weeks. And it stays good.

    I don't know, I see my freunulum and it looks kind of tight.

    Yeah, I don't really have any advice on that. A quick search tells me theres a simple operation to get it taken care of. You dont need a circumcision. My foreskin advice holds though. You know the tendon thingy at the end of your foreskin? thats what you need to stretch.

    That tendon thingy is the frenulum :wink:

    KungFu on
    Theft 4 Bread
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    KungFu wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    KungFu wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    KungFu wrote: »
    I wasn't circumcised, but the idea that my frenulum might be breve, or short, scares me. I can pull back my foreskin past the head, but it doesn't really stay. It doesn't hurt (just feels weird). I think my frenulum just retracts the foreskin back over the head when I let go.

    The idea that this can rip during intercourse and ruin a good time is horrifying.

    you can make the foreskin not tight. Just stretch it every morning in the shower for like . . . a minute. Should be all good in a few weeks. And it stays good.

    I don't know, I see my freunulum and it looks kind of tight.

    Yeah, I don't really have any advice on that. A quick search tells me theres a simple operation to get it taken care of. You dont need a circumcision. My foreskin advice holds though. You know the tendon thingy at the end of your foreskin? thats what you need to stretch.

    That tendon thingy is the frenulum :wink:

    no no. I mean the ring inside your foreskin at the tip. its there.

    I know what the frenulum is. foreskin to the bottom of the glans.

    geckahn on
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I believe that the medical benefits of circumcision, however small they may be, provide this reason.
    This is like how the medical benefits of corn are why we subsidize it so much, right?

    I was wrong, sorry, the idea that Kellogg used his money to start up circumcision as an anti-masturbation tool and it spread around makes perfect sense.
    Thank you all for informing me.

    Picardathon on
  • KungFuKungFu Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    geckahn wrote: »
    KungFu wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    KungFu wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    KungFu wrote: »
    I wasn't circumcised, but the idea that my frenulum might be breve, or short, scares me. I can pull back my foreskin past the head, but it doesn't really stay. It doesn't hurt (just feels weird). I think my frenulum just retracts the foreskin back over the head when I let go.

    The idea that this can rip during intercourse and ruin a good time is horrifying.

    you can make the foreskin not tight. Just stretch it every morning in the shower for like . . . a minute. Should be all good in a few weeks. And it stays good.

    I don't know, I see my freunulum and it looks kind of tight.

    Yeah, I don't really have any advice on that. A quick search tells me theres a simple operation to get it taken care of. You dont need a circumcision. My foreskin advice holds though. You know the tendon thingy at the end of your foreskin? thats what you need to stretch.

    That tendon thingy is the frenulum :wink:

    no no. I mean the ring inside your foreskin at the tip. its there.

    I know what the frenulum is. foreskin to the bottom of the glans.

    ah, I see.

    KungFu on
    Theft 4 Bread
This discussion has been closed.