Enough with the loaded hyperbole! The demonization of circumcision is beyond absurd!! You don't like circumcision, great! more power to you!! Make your choice for your kids.
No, I should make the choice for myself and not for someone else, especially my kid.
It's about infant circumcision, not adult circumcision which is completly different. Circumcision, like any other optional body modification shold be the child's choice when he's old enough to make the decision.
Don't forget most cut guys never chose to be circumcised. If circumcision wasn't a parental decision, this procedure would have disappeared for a long time.
And I'm not really sure where the teaching bit comes in. I don't recall anyone teaching me proper hygiene, it was just fairly obvious that the skin peeled back and there was gunk there. And now it remains clean. For teaching parents just tell them to wash the thing with water and they'll figure it out.
Plus it seems to get fairly clean if you masturbate in the shower, and I don't know about the rest of you guys...
Seriously. Keeping your dick clean isn't some big mystery. It's there your entire life. At some point you figure out that, hey, soap and water mean that I get clean. Being uncut I know that I need to pay about 3 extra seconds of attention to my dick to ensure that it's clean, and that's maybe being generous. I would be cleaning it anyway when I shower.
Not that I haven't encountered guys who don't seem to get that concept. But they were not the most hygenic of folks anyway. It had nothing to do with being uncut.
many people keep saying its not such a huge deal which really it isn't I suppose if you look at it in terms of what is truly important in your life.
but if you think about it in terms of medical ethics, it kinda is
Its pretty much the only medical procedure that carries a statistically significant risk for complications that we allow done by default with little to no medical need and negligible benefit. Even something like an amniocentesis which can provide invaluable diagnostic information on a fetus is highly discouraged as the risk of triggering a spontaneous abortion which is about .5% to 1% is considered unacceptable. As cited before, the risk of complications for a circumcisions is quite a bit higher than that. And yes, I understand an abortion is much worse than many of the things considered a "complication" for circumcision. Despite that, it still the only medical procedure considered "default" with negligible benefits and a statistically significant risk. And the implications of that are what people here seem to be arguing past each other about.
I don't think you know what you are talking about.
Giving kids antibiotics for ear infections before 72 hours has demonstrable harm and absolutely no medical benefit and it is done every day basically as a default. I guarantee you it kills more kids than circumcision does. There are lots of reasons to argue against circumcision, please pick valid ones.
kistra
your issue is with medical intertia and the adoption of changes to treatment from evidence based medicine. Much like the realization that high flow oxygen causing blindness in premature children, complications from antibiotic administration for acute otitis media and its total efficacy are one of those things that will also eventually change in clinical practice. Circumcision is not. We understand circumcision well. Its cost benefit ratio in medical terms is very clear. My point stands from a medical ethics standpoint. When the scales shift to the point where the risks outweigh the benefits whether by results of evidence based medical studies like AOM treatment or the use of O2 in premature neonates, it is a practice that ought to be reconsidered and alternatives found. Circumcision is not a treatment for anything in the vast majority of incidences where it is used. Thats the difference. Please do some critical thinking try to understand my arguments before you assume I don't know what I'm talking about.
I did think about your argument. There are lots of medical procedures that are done simply because people used to think there was a medical benefit. Circumcision falls squarely into that group. It is in no way unique. Are you trying to argue that circumcision wasn't done in the past because it was thought to have a medical benefit?
I would also argue that the risk/benefit analysis is not as well understood as you seem to think. Have you read this thread? There are lots of people claiming no risk or no benefit. They could be exaggerating to make their point but at least some of them sound completely genuine to me.
There are 16 currently active clinical trials about circumcision. In general the NIH tries to avoid studying things where the cost/risk analysis is 100% known and clear.
I'm not arguing for infant circumcision. In general I think it makes sense to wait until the kid is 10 or 12 and give them the option. I know from having multiple family members have circumcisions at that age they aren't particularly traumatic, they were but up and active the next day. But your arguments are just false and aren't helping.
Kistra on
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
There is benefit from circumcision if you are really lazy or you don't have access to any hygiene facilities.
There is no benefit for an average person. Even in poor countries in say, Asia where the hygiene situation is pretty bad they seem to be able to wash their junk pretty well.
There is benefit from circumcision if you are really lazy or you don't have access to any hygiene facilities.
There is no benefit for an average person. Even in poor countries in say, Asia where the hygiene situation is pretty bad they seem to be able to wash their junk pretty well.
Insert image of Spider Man with the caption "HOW I WASH PENIS?"
There is benefit from circumcision if you are really lazy or you don't have access to any hygiene facilities.
There is no benefit for an average person. Even in poor countries in say, Asia where the hygiene situation is pretty bad they seem to be able to wash their junk pretty well.
I would say that decreased transmission of HIV and herpes is a benefit. It shouldn't impact people before puberty which is one reason I don't see infant circumcision as being helpful.
I hate to break it to you but condoms aren't perfect and neither are the people using them. From a public health perspective anything that slows transmission of HIV, even by a percentage point or two is going to save lives.
If there is no benefit should adult men not be allowed to choose circumcision for themselves? We generally don't allow people to demand medical procedures from which they will derive no benefit.
Kistra on
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
If there is no benefit should adult men not be allowed to choose circumcision for themselves? We generally don't allow people to demand medical procedures from which they will derive no benefit.
There is benefit from circumcision if you are really lazy or you don't have access to any hygiene facilities.
There is no benefit for an average person. Even in poor countries in say, Asia where the hygiene situation is pretty bad they seem to be able to wash their junk pretty well.
I would say that decreased transmission of HIV and herpes is a benefit. It shouldn't impact people before puberty which is one reason I don't see infant circumcision as being helpful.
I hate to break it to you but condoms aren't perfect and neither are the people using them. From a public health perspective anything that slows transmission of HIV, even by a percentage point or two is going to save lives.
If there is no benefit should adult men not be allowed to choose circumcision for themselves? We generally don't allow people to demand medical procedures from which they will derive no benefit.
The HIV transmission thing is debated at best. Any studies done about it are for obvious reasons quite inconclusive (as you can't exactly test it in controlled conditions). And again, condoms are about fifty million times more better way to prevent HIV and herpes transmission then circumsicion.
Plastic surgery is allowed in most countries to my knowledge.
There is benefit from circumcision if you are really lazy or you don't have access to any hygiene facilities.
There is no benefit for an average person. Even in poor countries in say, Asia where the hygiene situation is pretty bad they seem to be able to wash their junk pretty well.
I would say that decreased transmission of HIV and herpes is a benefit. It shouldn't impact people before puberty which is one reason I don't see infant circumcision as being helpful.
I hate to break it to you but condoms aren't perfect and neither are the people using them. From a public health perspective anything that slows transmission of HIV, even by a percentage point or two is going to save lives.
If there is no benefit should adult men not be allowed to choose circumcision for themselves? We generally don't allow people to demand medical procedures from which they will derive no benefit.
The HIV transmission thing is debated at best. Any studies done about it are for obvious reasons quite inconclusive (as you can't exactly test it in controlled conditions). And again, condoms are about fifty million times more better way to prevent HIV and herpes transmission then circumcision.
Plastic surgery is allowed in most countries to my knowledge.
Plastic surgery isn't covered by insurance plans while circumcision is. FYI, condoms aren't actually that great against herpes because a significant portion of the viral shedding occurs in areas not covered by condoms. Condoms are by far the the best way to prevent HIV transmission but they do have problems. For instance they prevent conception in addition to preventing HIV transmission and sperm washing isn't available everywhere. Also many long term couples make the decision to stop using condoms when the infected partner's viral load is undetectable. Also, condoms do break.
Multiple studies looking at HIV transmission in regards to circumcision the studies have been stopped early because a statically and medically significant effect was seen and it was deemed unethical to continue the study. There are some issues with the original studies because they looked at heterosexual transmission in areas with extremely high incidence rates of HIV. However, studies are now being done in the rest of the world and in other populations and they still show a benefit. It isn't large, but if I was a guy I would want that little extra bit of protection.
many people keep saying its not such a huge deal which really it isn't I suppose if you look at it in terms of what is truly important in your life.
but if you think about it in terms of medical ethics, it kinda is
Its pretty much the only medical procedure that carries a statistically significant risk for complications that we allow done by default with little to no medical need and negligible benefit. Even something like an amniocentesis which can provide invaluable diagnostic information on a fetus is highly discouraged as the risk of triggering a spontaneous abortion which is about .5% to 1% is considered unacceptable. As cited before, the risk of complications for a circumcisions is quite a bit higher than that. And yes, I understand an abortion is much worse than many of the things considered a "complication" for circumcision. Despite that, it still the only medical procedure considered "default" with negligible benefits and a statistically significant risk. And the implications of that are what people here seem to be arguing past each other about.
I don't think you know what you are talking about.
Giving kids antibiotics for ear infections before 72 hours has demonstrable harm and absolutely no medical benefit and it is done every day basically as a default. I guarantee you it kills more kids than circumcision does. There are lots of reasons to argue against circumcision, please pick valid ones.
kistra
your issue is with medical intertia and the adoption of changes to treatment from evidence based medicine. Much like the realization that high flow oxygen causing blindness in premature children, complications from antibiotic administration for acute otitis media and its total efficacy are one of those things that will also eventually change in clinical practice. Circumcision is not. We understand circumcision well. Its cost benefit ratio in medical terms is very clear. My point stands from a medical ethics standpoint. When the scales shift to the point where the risks outweigh the benefits whether by results of evidence based medical studies like AOM treatment or the use of O2 in premature neonates, it is a practice that ought to be reconsidered and alternatives found. Circumcision is not a treatment for anything in the vast majority of incidences where it is used. Thats the difference. Please do some critical thinking try to understand my arguments before you assume I don't know what I'm talking about.
I did think about your argument. There are lots of medical procedures that are done simply because people used to think there was a medical benefit. Circumcision falls squarely into that group. It is in no way unique. Are you trying to argue that circumcision wasn't done in the past because it was thought to have a medical benefit?
I would also argue that the risk/benefit analysis is not as well understood as you seem to think. Have you read this thread? There are lots of people claiming no risk or no benefit. They could be exaggerating to make their point but at least some of them sound completely genuine to me.
There are 16 currently active clinical trials about circumcision. In general the NIH tries to avoid studying things where the cost/risk analysis is 100% known and clear.
I'm not arguing for infant circumcision. In general I think it makes sense to wait until the kid is 10 or 12 and give them the option. I know from having multiple family members have circumcisions at that age they aren't particularly traumatic, they were but up and active the next day. But your arguments are just false and aren't helping.
If the American and Canadian organizations charged with making recommendations on these things thinks they have enough information to make such a decision, thats enough for me. Sure maybe its not 100% but really what is in science. Doesn't mean we should stop studying it, but there isn't enough on the positive side to justify the procedure and we've been studying it for quite a while.
American Academy of Pediatrics: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.
Canadian Pediatric Society: The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns
if want, i can send you the entire Up-to-Date article on this, it's pretty much all the information you will ever want on circumcision. Thats where i've been getting all of my information on this.
I got to page 15 and realized that this thread is actually moving faster than I'm able to read it since I'm at work. Naturally, I kind of jumped ahead, so forgive me if what I'm saying has been dealt with:
It keeps getting repeated that there's no harm in waiting for a child to come to a certain age before letting the child make the decision. Obviously, when given the choice, few people are going to want anything sharp near their dong (shaving accoutrement exempted) let alone making permanent incisions. It seems obvious to me that by the time you're old enough to make the decision yourself, you're comfortable in your own body, and thus, very unlikely to elect to have something like this done.
What I'm getting to is this: Wouldn't there be more of a chance of problems if you wait until maturation to have this done? I mean, the body is more likely to heal properly at a young age because of all the years of development that are yet to come.
But when you're fifteen? Your penis is pretty much done expanding at that point (if my high school biology is serving me correctly), and isn't going to change all that much. Would this somehow have different long-term affects than doing it in infancy?
It just seems like saying that you can do it later is ignoring any potential side-effects that might crop up from doing it down the road. If there are any--I don't know. That's kind of what I'm posting about, and I didn't see that brought up.
Personally, I'm on the fence. I'm cut, myself, but I wasn't sure if/when I have a child, and it's a boy, that I'd elect to do the same to him. It's never caused me any actual problems, but I remember initially being pretty anxious upon learning that I was missing a piece of my schlong.
Based on all the porn I've watched since then, I've come to the conclusion that it matters very little one way or the other for most people, myself included. But there are some who really are quite bothered by it. Not to mention people that actually have had the procedure botched--that ain't cool at all.
So about the whole waiting thing--is there any difference in how it will heal if you get it done when you're older?
Xenogear_0001 on
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
It isn't large, but if I was a guy I would want that little extra bit of protection.
Of course, when that minimal bit of protection means you get your foreskin cut of most guys don't want it. Would you be for removing the clitoral hood in infant girls because there is a very small benefit?
Julius on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Women get a ton of urinary tract infections compared to men, and many of these are related to hygiene, seemingly independent of socio-economic status (1 in 5 women will have one, while they are rare in males, and the risk goes up with age). What body part(s) would you advocate for the removal of in female infants in order to reduce the rate of these infections?
Urinary tract aren't the only risk non-circumcised males face, but they are just about the most easily treatable.
Oh wait, I know, it's easier to get your dick cut off if you stick it in a blender since there's more slack! Yeah!
Also did you know that eating peanut butter can give you cancer?
Point being the STD reduction which would still leave a man vulnerable the majority of the time, and the evidence all appears to be coming from the same place...
Nearly anything can hurt you. We don't preempt unless there's a major difference and it's prevalent. It's a cure in search of a disease.
Women get a ton of urinary tract infections compared to men, and many of these are related to hygiene, seemingly independent of socio-economic status (1 in 5 women will have one, while they are rare in males, and the risk goes up with age). What body part(s) would you advocate for the removal of in female infants in order to reduce the rate of these infections?
Urinary tract aren't the only risk non-circumcised males face, but they are just about the most easily treatable.
Try again?
I've had one. It sucks. They shove a cue-tip thing up your urethra. Words can not describe how uncomfortable this really is.
The moral of the story: Don't put your penis in a female's butt without a condom.
It isn't large, but if I was a guy I would want that little extra bit of protection.
Of course, when that minimal bit of protection means you get your foreskin cut of most guys don't want it. Would you be for removing the clitoral hood in infant girls because there is a very small benefit?
Also kistra, it doesn't matter if you personally want the extra protection, since you wouldn't be the one making the call.
Alternatively, if getting your hood or labia cut off gave you a slight HIV advantage, would you do it?
Women get a ton of urinary tract infections compared to men, and many of these are related to hygiene, seemingly independent of socio-economic status (1 in 5 women will have one, while they are rare in males, and the risk goes up with age). What body part(s) would you advocate for the removal of in female infants in order to reduce the rate of these infections?
Urinary tract aren't the only risk non-circumcised males face, but they are just about the most easily treatable.
Try again?
No need. You've shown that your experience trumps statistics every time.
sidhaethe on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Women get a ton of urinary tract infections compared to men, and many of these are related to hygiene, seemingly independent of socio-economic status (1 in 5 women will have one, while they are rare in males, and the risk goes up with age). What body part(s) would you advocate for the removal of in female infants in order to reduce the rate of these infections?
Urinary tract aren't the only risk non-circumcised males face, but they are just about the most easily treatable.
Try again?
No need. You've shown that your experience trumps statistics every time.
"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."
Atomika on
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Women get a ton of urinary tract infections compared to men, and many of these are related to hygiene, seemingly independent of socio-economic status (1 in 5 women will have one, while they are rare in males, and the risk goes up with age). What body part(s) would you advocate for the removal of in female infants in order to reduce the rate of these infections?
Urinary tract aren't the only risk non-circumcised males face, but they are just about the most easily treatable.
Try again?
No need. You've shown that your experience trumps statistics every time.
"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."
He has a very good point though. I don't really doubt your anecdotal experience (well I do because any anecdotal evidence is obviously far more prone to confirmation bias) but it says little about how things are in the rest of the world.
Especially in medical practice. The most common problem an internist sees is not the most common problem a GP sees about internal medicine.
He has a very good point though. I don't really doubt your anecdotal experience (well I do because any anecdotal evidence is obviously far more prone to confirmation bias) but it says little about how things are in the rest of the world.
Especially in medical practice. The most common problem an internist sees is not the most common problem a GP sees about internal medicine.
What confirmation bias is there to be had? It's a binary value; either a patient is circumcised or isn't. You think I'm purposefully ignoring the cases of circumcised penile tissue disease?
And I work in ER. We see everything.
Atomika on
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
He has a very good point though. I don't really doubt your anecdotal experience (well I do because any anecdotal evidence is obviously far more prone to confirmation bias) but it says little about how things are in the rest of the world.
Especially in medical practice. The most common problem an internist sees is not the most common problem a GP sees about internal medicine.
What confirmation bias is there to be had? It's a binary value; either a patient is circumcised or isn't. You think I'm purposefully ignoring the cases of circumcised penile tissue disease?
And I work in ER. We see everything.
No, we think you're accidentally ignoring the cases of circumcised penile tissue disease. Do you honestly think you're not just as prone to confirmation bias as everyone else?
I would tell him that the cost-benefit ratio favors circumcision
Stop right there.
Where's the evidence?
I lost the link, but I earlier posted a study assessing the cost-benefit ratio of using circ as an HIV combat strategy in the US, given the exposure probability of US males. Ends up the reduction in the chances of being infected by HIV alone is enough to justify the procedure. I also posted a cost-benefit analysis of the ideal age for circ, with the result being that neonatal is by far the best, and another study showing that the risk of the procedure increases with age.
There's also the fact that the risk of the procedure is minuscule compared to the normal risks of any given day. You're probably putting your child more at risk by feeding him peanut butter (6 tablespoons of peanut butter increases the risk of fatal melanoma by the same amount as 1.5 cigs).
It's not, actually, because you're quoting an accusation of ignoring that assertion rather than the supposed ignoring.
Oh, okay. So your criticism unequivocally renders the findings of the study false, but my criticism is lying.
I'm so glad you're here to help out.
Stop bitching. A caught you saying something stupid, so give up that point and either try to think up something new or keep on crying into your pillow about how mean I am.
because that's ridiculous. you know it's ridiculous. you cannot legally keep a child out of school. if you want to make a judgement that homeschooling is better than that's your right as a parent.
also, by the time a child has sexual intercourse presumably you can ask him 'would you like a surgery that does x y and z?'
also the protection from STI's is laughable when compared to a condom. I can't produce a study on this, but I highly doubt that STI rates are different between cut and uncut when a condom is involved
That's not the point though, Eddy.
Polio.
Are you really still beating that strawman? Nowhere did I claim the HIV=Polio. I noted that your argument that circumcision is unnecessary because HIV in the US is rare compared to Africa could be (and is) used to oppose vaccines, an argument we know is hilariously stupid. It's textbook reductio ad absurdum, so you can suck it up.
As Quid said, people object to the permanent change of the body without consent.
There are people who after having it taken at birth are angry that they were never given a choice.
If there are people who didn't get it taken at birth who don't want it, they can have it done now.
Why irreversibly remove something without consent if you could just wait until they are old enough to decide for themselves?
Because the procedure is actually dangerous when an individual is old enough to choose. Therefor, not circing a baby puts the child at risk either for disease or complication.
Then you get sperm all over the floor of the shower, which is disgusting.
...Although, in college I figured out that if I pulled the foreskin forward just as I finished, it would prevent it from spraying and just form a blob, which could then be safely dropped down the drain.
Way too much info...
Please please PLEASE tell me this didn't occur in a dormitory.
Then you get sperm all over the floor of the shower, which is disgusting.
...Although, in college I figured out that if I pulled the foreskin forward just as I finished, it would prevent it from spraying and just form a blob, which could then be safely dropped down the drain.
Way too much info...
Please please PLEASE tell me this didn't occur in a dormitory.
You may want to have a seat...
Khaczor on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
No, we think you're accidentally ignoring the cases of circumcised penile tissue disease. Do you honestly think you're not just a prone to confirmation bias as everyone else?
Well, you're wrong is all I'll say. Damn wrong. But whatever.
Atomika on
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
edited June 2010
Yes, how could I possibly have not known that you are the only human alive who is immune to psychological bias.
Shivahn on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Yes, how could I possibly have not known that you are the only human alive who is immune to psychological bias.
To the point where I've literally forgotten any opposing evidence to my argument?
You obviously have me confused for someone who cares deeply about this subject one way or another.
What? Do you even know what confirmation bias is?
Your memory is not perfect. Whether you care deeply about the subject is irrelevant, almost everything is subject to confirmation bias and that's one of the reasons anecdotal evidence is useless.
Confirmation bias is especially going to play up in this instance because circumcised penises are the norm. You are far less likely to remember the norm then you're to remember the deviations.
It's not, actually, because you're quoting an accusation of ignoring that assertion rather than the supposed ignoring.
Oh, okay. So your criticism unequivocally renders the findings of the study false, but my criticism is lying.
I'm so glad you're here to help out.
Stop bitching. A caught you saying something stupid, so give up that point and either try to think up something new or keep on crying into your pillow about how mean I am.
Found the cost/benefit. If I'm reading it right, neonatal circ reduces a person's chance of contracting HIV by .2992% ("It reduced the 1.87% lifetime risk of HIV among all males by about 16%"). Now, I'm only assuming that the risk of complication is included, but I think the likelyhood is quite high.
It's not, actually, because you're quoting an accusation of ignoring that assertion rather than the supposed ignoring.
Oh, okay. So your criticism unequivocally renders the findings of the study false, but my criticism is lying.
I'm so glad you're here to help out.
Stop bitching. A caught you saying something stupid, so give up that point and either try to think up something new or keep on crying into your pillow about how mean I am.
No, seriously? You're for real here?
You took the statement "he's doing it" and asked "is that him doing it?" and then threw a hissy fit when I answered correctly. Now, you could have changed tactics and come up with an intelligent argument (okay, maybe not you, but most people), but you can't try to assert that your argument was ill thought out, if thought out at all.
Stop bitching. A caught you saying something stupid, so give up that point and either try to think up something new or keep on crying into your pillow about how mean I am.
No, seriously? You're for real here?
You took the statement "he's doing it" and asked "is that him doing it?" and then threw a hissy fit when I answered correctly. Now, you could have changed tactics and come up with an intelligent argument (okay, maybe not you, but most people), but you can't try to assert that your argument was ill thought out, if thought out at all.
Oh, you're serious
Really, keep 'em coming. I'll just sit here and watch. I'm sure everyone can see the holes in your argument without my help.
Stop bitching. A caught you saying something stupid, so give up that point and either try to think up something new or keep on crying into your pillow about how mean I am.
No, seriously? You're for real here?
You took the statement "he's doing it" and asked "is that him doing it?" and then threw a hissy fit when I answered correctly. Now, you could have changed tactics and come up with an intelligent argument (okay, maybe not you, but most people), but you can't try to assert that your argument was ill thought out, if thought out at all.
Oh, you're serious
Really, keep 'em coming. I'll just sit here and watch. I'm sure everyone can see the holes in your argument without my help.
You obviously can't, though, given that you have yet to make an argument.
females get urinary tract infections cause their urinary tract is right next to their other tracts, duh
males on the other hand break their urethras and pee into their balls
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Posts
No, I should make the choice for myself and not for someone else, especially my kid.
It's about infant circumcision, not adult circumcision which is completly different. Circumcision, like any other optional body modification shold be the child's choice when he's old enough to make the decision.
Don't forget most cut guys never chose to be circumcised. If circumcision wasn't a parental decision, this procedure would have disappeared for a long time.
Seriously. Keeping your dick clean isn't some big mystery. It's there your entire life. At some point you figure out that, hey, soap and water mean that I get clean. Being uncut I know that I need to pay about 3 extra seconds of attention to my dick to ensure that it's clean, and that's maybe being generous. I would be cleaning it anyway when I shower.
Not that I haven't encountered guys who don't seem to get that concept. But they were not the most hygenic of folks anyway. It had nothing to do with being uncut.
I did think about your argument. There are lots of medical procedures that are done simply because people used to think there was a medical benefit. Circumcision falls squarely into that group. It is in no way unique. Are you trying to argue that circumcision wasn't done in the past because it was thought to have a medical benefit?
I would also argue that the risk/benefit analysis is not as well understood as you seem to think. Have you read this thread? There are lots of people claiming no risk or no benefit. They could be exaggerating to make their point but at least some of them sound completely genuine to me.
Also I think the NIH agrees with me:
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=circumcision
There are 16 currently active clinical trials about circumcision. In general the NIH tries to avoid studying things where the cost/risk analysis is 100% known and clear.
I'm not arguing for infant circumcision. In general I think it makes sense to wait until the kid is 10 or 12 and give them the option. I know from having multiple family members have circumcisions at that age they aren't particularly traumatic, they were but up and active the next day. But your arguments are just false and aren't helping.
There is no benefit for an average person. Even in poor countries in say, Asia where the hygiene situation is pretty bad they seem to be able to wash their junk pretty well.
Insert image of Spider Man with the caption "HOW I WASH PENIS?"
edit: man, of all the things to totp with...
I would say that decreased transmission of HIV and herpes is a benefit. It shouldn't impact people before puberty which is one reason I don't see infant circumcision as being helpful.
I hate to break it to you but condoms aren't perfect and neither are the people using them. From a public health perspective anything that slows transmission of HIV, even by a percentage point or two is going to save lives.
If there is no benefit should adult men not be allowed to choose circumcision for themselves? We generally don't allow people to demand medical procedures from which they will derive no benefit.
Wait, what?
The HIV transmission thing is debated at best. Any studies done about it are for obvious reasons quite inconclusive (as you can't exactly test it in controlled conditions). And again, condoms are about fifty million times more better way to prevent HIV and herpes transmission then circumsicion.
Plastic surgery is allowed in most countries to my knowledge.
Plastic surgery isn't covered by insurance plans while circumcision is. FYI, condoms aren't actually that great against herpes because a significant portion of the viral shedding occurs in areas not covered by condoms. Condoms are by far the the best way to prevent HIV transmission but they do have problems. For instance they prevent conception in addition to preventing HIV transmission and sperm washing isn't available everywhere. Also many long term couples make the decision to stop using condoms when the infected partner's viral load is undetectable. Also, condoms do break.
Multiple studies looking at HIV transmission in regards to circumcision the studies have been stopped early because a statically and medically significant effect was seen and it was deemed unethical to continue the study. There are some issues with the original studies because they looked at heterosexual transmission in areas with extremely high incidence rates of HIV. However, studies are now being done in the rest of the world and in other populations and they still show a benefit. It isn't large, but if I was a guy I would want that little extra bit of protection.
http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/content/full/8/1/64
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20408390
http://journals.lww.com/co-infectiousdiseases/Abstract/2010/02000/Male_circumcision_to_reduce_the_risk_of_HIV_and.9.aspx
American Academy of Pediatrics: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.
Canadian Pediatric Society: The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns
if want, i can send you the entire Up-to-Date article on this, it's pretty much all the information you will ever want on circumcision. Thats where i've been getting all of my information on this.
It keeps getting repeated that there's no harm in waiting for a child to come to a certain age before letting the child make the decision. Obviously, when given the choice, few people are going to want anything sharp near their dong (shaving accoutrement exempted) let alone making permanent incisions. It seems obvious to me that by the time you're old enough to make the decision yourself, you're comfortable in your own body, and thus, very unlikely to elect to have something like this done.
What I'm getting to is this: Wouldn't there be more of a chance of problems if you wait until maturation to have this done? I mean, the body is more likely to heal properly at a young age because of all the years of development that are yet to come.
But when you're fifteen? Your penis is pretty much done expanding at that point (if my high school biology is serving me correctly), and isn't going to change all that much. Would this somehow have different long-term affects than doing it in infancy?
It just seems like saying that you can do it later is ignoring any potential side-effects that might crop up from doing it down the road. If there are any--I don't know. That's kind of what I'm posting about, and I didn't see that brought up.
Personally, I'm on the fence. I'm cut, myself, but I wasn't sure if/when I have a child, and it's a boy, that I'd elect to do the same to him. It's never caused me any actual problems, but I remember initially being pretty anxious upon learning that I was missing a piece of my schlong.
Based on all the porn I've watched since then, I've come to the conclusion that it matters very little one way or the other for most people, myself included. But there are some who really are quite bothered by it. Not to mention people that actually have had the procedure botched--that ain't cool at all.
So about the whole waiting thing--is there any difference in how it will heal if you get it done when you're older?
Of course, when that minimal bit of protection means you get your foreskin cut of most guys don't want it. Would you be for removing the clitoral hood in infant girls because there is a very small benefit?
Urinary tract aren't the only risk non-circumcised males face, but they are just about the most easily treatable.
Try again?
Oh wait, I know, it's easier to get your dick cut off if you stick it in a blender since there's more slack! Yeah!
Also did you know that eating peanut butter can give you cancer?
Point being the STD reduction which would still leave a man vulnerable the majority of the time, and the evidence all appears to be coming from the same place...
Nearly anything can hurt you. We don't preempt unless there's a major difference and it's prevalent. It's a cure in search of a disease.
I've had one. It sucks. They shove a cue-tip thing up your urethra. Words can not describe how uncomfortable this really is.
The moral of the story: Don't put your penis in a female's butt without a condom.
Also kistra, it doesn't matter if you personally want the extra protection, since you wouldn't be the one making the call.
Alternatively, if getting your hood or labia cut off gave you a slight HIV advantage, would you do it?
No need. You've shown that your experience trumps statistics every time.
"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."
He has a very good point though. I don't really doubt your anecdotal experience (well I do because any anecdotal evidence is obviously far more prone to confirmation bias) but it says little about how things are in the rest of the world.
Especially in medical practice. The most common problem an internist sees is not the most common problem a GP sees about internal medicine.
Male butt is okay then?
What confirmation bias is there to be had? It's a binary value; either a patient is circumcised or isn't. You think I'm purposefully ignoring the cases of circumcised penile tissue disease?
And I work in ER. We see everything.
No, we think you're accidentally ignoring the cases of circumcised penile tissue disease. Do you honestly think you're not just as prone to confirmation bias as everyone else?
I lost the link, but I earlier posted a study assessing the cost-benefit ratio of using circ as an HIV combat strategy in the US, given the exposure probability of US males. Ends up the reduction in the chances of being infected by HIV alone is enough to justify the procedure. I also posted a cost-benefit analysis of the ideal age for circ, with the result being that neonatal is by far the best, and another study showing that the risk of the procedure increases with age.
There's also the fact that the risk of the procedure is minuscule compared to the normal risks of any given day. You're probably putting your child more at risk by feeding him peanut butter (6 tablespoons of peanut butter increases the risk of fatal melanoma by the same amount as 1.5 cigs).
Stop bitching. A caught you saying something stupid, so give up that point and either try to think up something new or keep on crying into your pillow about how mean I am.
Are you really still beating that strawman? Nowhere did I claim the HIV=Polio. I noted that your argument that circumcision is unnecessary because HIV in the US is rare compared to Africa could be (and is) used to oppose vaccines, an argument we know is hilariously stupid. It's textbook reductio ad absurdum, so you can suck it up.
Because the procedure is actually dangerous when an individual is old enough to choose. Therefor, not circing a baby puts the child at risk either for disease or complication.
Please please PLEASE tell me this didn't occur in a dormitory.
You may want to have a seat...
Well, you're wrong is all I'll say. Damn wrong. But whatever.
To the point where I've literally forgotten any opposing evidence to my argument?
You obviously have me confused for someone who cares deeply about this subject one way or another.
Yes? That definitely happens.
What? Do you even know what confirmation bias is?
Your memory is not perfect. Whether you care deeply about the subject is irrelevant, almost everything is subject to confirmation bias and that's one of the reasons anecdotal evidence is useless.
Confirmation bias is especially going to play up in this instance because circumcised penises are the norm. You are far less likely to remember the norm then you're to remember the deviations.
No, seriously? You're for real here?
The age study.
You took the statement "he's doing it" and asked "is that him doing it?" and then threw a hissy fit when I answered correctly. Now, you could have changed tactics and come up with an intelligent argument (okay, maybe not you, but most people), but you can't try to assert that your argument was ill thought out, if thought out at all.
Oh, you're serious
Really, keep 'em coming. I'll just sit here and watch. I'm sure everyone can see the holes in your argument without my help.
You obviously can't, though, given that you have yet to make an argument.
males on the other hand break their urethras and pee into their balls
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Eh, your earlier material was better. You know that everyone else can read this thread too, right?