Well, it seems that there is/was some reliable study that said that circumcision could be a fairly preventative method. Whether that's true now, it was then, and preventative > waiting until something happens.
Not carrying out surgery when not needed > carrying out unnecessary surgery
You see all surgery carries inherent risks and is not something you want to do glibly.
so what if there's a history of urinary infections, or there is a suspicion that the kid might be more prone to get them? What's the line between unnecessary and necessary, and when exactly should parent's (with proper medical advice, obviously) consent not override the child's?
I don't know, I'm not a medical professional. I'm not well versed enough in the subject that I feel II could draw a line in the sand.
Exactly. Neither am I. If the doctor says that it would actually help down the line, I think that would be a good reason to do it. If they say that the risks don't really outweigh the benefits, then screw it.
I don't think its going to change my stance that cutting random bits of infants and/or children without a clear medical need to do so is a Bad Thing.
Sure this has been said, but just in case: then it's a good thing that there are clear medical advantages to circumcision, such as a significantly lesser rate of contracting / spreading many STD's (particularly topical ones).
I don't think its going to change my stance that cutting random bits of infants and/or children without a clear medical need to do so is a Bad Thing.
Sure this has been said, but just in case: then it's a good thing that there are clear medical advantages to circumcision, such as a significantly lesser rate of contracting / spreading many STD's (particularly topical ones).
What ten year olds are having unprotected sex? It's something you can choose to have when you're fifteen/sixteen if you feel that particular advantage is important to you.
I don't think its going to change my stance that cutting random bits of infants and/or children without a clear medical need to do so is a Bad Thing.
Sure this has been said, but just in case: then it's a good thing that there are clear medical advantages to circumcision, such as a significantly lesser rate of contracting / spreading many STD's (particularly topical ones).
What ten year olds are having unprotected sex? It's something you can choose to have when you're fifteen/sixteen if you feel that particular advantage is important to you.
Why are you so passionate about babies not getting circumcised? I feel like we're going in circles, where someone lists an advantage, then you minimize it, as if you're being assaulted by the circumcision police. To be honest, if I WAS going to get my penis cut, I'd much rather do it when I was a baby and had no use for it than when I was 15 and could remember the PAIN OF CUTTING MY PENIS.
I've never heard a circumcised person complain that they're mad of the lack of choice. If we, the circumcised public, don't care, then let it be. I have yet to see a reason NOT to get it circumcised other than a lack of sensitivity and the initial pain felt by a baby. I don't think I'm scarred (emotionally, of course) by the whole process, nor is the majority of people out there.
Me and my penis are good. Sanitary reasons? STD prevention? Who cares! It just looks cool. Like a torpedo or rocket or something.
imbalanced on
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited July 2007
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?
Why do you care how passionate or not I am. It rarely comes up in any other thread how passionate people are, for the record I'm not very passionate I just think most of the arguments for it are bullshit.
The reason not to get circumcised have already been repeatedly stated, read back in the thread if you need to find out why many see it as wrong.
Also you can't remember pain and it's not like we hold people down whilst the operations carried out, we have invented these wonderful drugs called painkillers.
The only reason you think it looks cool is because you were brought up with it as the norm, you'd be seen as a freak by many outside of the states.
It's like cleaning lint out of your belly button. It's not hard to clean.
Probably not but the idea of picking 'stuff' out from under foreskin sounds pretty gross.
I'm pretty sure a lot of "gross" activities are involved when you shower. Wiping between one's ass cheeks isn't a bed of roses but we don't slice those off.
I have NEVER heard an argument against circumcision. NEVER. Almost all of my friends are circumcised, and the couple that aren't get a few jokes lobbed there way every now and then, but for the most part nobody gives a shit either way. I'm glad I am (easier to keep clean), but what's the ranting against it for? I've never had a problem with it. Ever. It's never been way too sensitive, and it's never been not sensitive enough. I assumed it was relatively common practice these days for cleanliness reasons.
It's just SO STRANGE to see a thread full of people speaking out AGAINST it, when I've grown up with it being the norm and the uncircumcised are "lol foreskin! Have fun washing that.", to which they say "I'm more sensitive during sex, so hah!" and a good laugh is had by all and NOBODY GIVES A SHIT.
It's like cleaning lint out of your belly button. It's not hard to clean.
Probably not but the idea of picking 'stuff' out from under foreskin sounds pretty gross.
I'm pretty sure a lot of "gross" activities are involved when you shower. Wiping between one's ass cheeks isn't a bed of roses but we don't slice those off.
I really fail to see circumcision as anything more than a (marginally) quantitatively more invasive procedure than ear-piercing. At least circumcision has an ostensible hygienic justification; piercing your ears just makes you look prettier. Yeah, there's a minute chance that you can screw something up when performing a circumcision, but there's a minute chance you can fuck up and tear a gash in someone's ear when piercing them.
Now, if you find piercing the ears of little girls to be a horrific and barbaric practice, then I guess you can't be accused of inconsistency. For me, I could barely muster up any concern when it was claimed that circumcision reduced sensitivity. Now that it doesn't even do that, I really don't care either way.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The reason not to get circumcised have already been repeatedly stated, read back in the thread if you need to find out why many see it as wrong.
Also you can't remember pain and it's not like we hold people down whilst the operations carried out, we have invented these wonderful drugs called painkillers.
Let's just assume I'm lazy / don't want to read through 23 pages / have read through half that and haven't found any better anti- reason than equating it to child abuse / would like to hear an anti- reason which measures up to, y'know, serious disease prevention in the pro- position.
I'm not, and not particularly bothered either way (though I do remember when I lived in the US it being very rare & odd to girls, but they were teenagers so what the hell did we know), but if I were a) arsed, b) willing to waste the sex time, I'd be quite happy having it done.
Totally see why it's retarded for religious reasons, and performed as ceremony rather than medically. But that aside really just interested in why people are actively anti- considering the medical reasons, since I haven't seen any serious reasons that trump a lower rate of STD contraction; choice may be an issue (and check my previous posts, I'm not exactly an anti-choice cheerleader for the State), but you aren't complaining about vaccinations or all sorts of medical things we do to kids when they are too young to fight us off - as you point out, we don't remember pain, and we use painkillers, the potential sexual side-effects are really negligable, ie vanity preference or less sensitivity, AKA oh nos lasting longer...what's the problem again?
I really fail to see circumcision as anything more than a (marginally) quantitatively more invasive procedure than ear-piercing. At least circumcision has an ostensible hygienic justification; piercing your ears just makes you look prettier. Yeah, there's a minute chance that you can screw something up when performing a circumcision, but there's a minute chance you can fuck up and tear a gash in someone's ear when piercing them.
Now, if you find piercing the ears of little girls to be a horrific and barbaric practice, then I guess you can't be accused of inconsistency. For me, I could barely muster up any concern when it was claimed that circumcision reduced sensitivity. Now that it doesn't even do that, I really don't care either way.
Ears are neither genitals nor are they (to my knowledge) an erogenous zone of any kind. Also, I've yet to meet any family that forces ear piercings on an infant. If a man wants to be circumcised, he eventually will. Why negate that option, however marginal?
you'd be seen as a freak by many outside of the states.
I really just want to say that I doubt most people consider this a big enough issue to view someone as a 'freak' if they find out they have a circumsized penis. "Did you hear about him? They say his parents circumsized him. What a freak!"
Of course, if they're ignorant enough to do so, why do we care what they think, again?
Okay I just read through this whole thread to find the so called already given reasons NOT to get circumcised. Here's what I found:
1) removes body part without permission
2) reduces sensitivity
3) complications occur in 2-10% of circumcisions, or as The Cat put it, 1/300 (although hers wasn't quoted from any source)
4) the foreskin protects sensitive area of the penis
With that said, here's the reasons FOR circumcision:
1) don't have to clean penis
2) don't have to roll back foreskin for any reason (sex, using the restroom, etc)
3) reduces the risk of AIDS, 2/3 less likely
4) reduces the risk of prostate cancer by 2x
5) reduces the risk of HPV in men, and cervical cancer in women
6) reduces the risk of penile cancer
7) children are 3-7 times less likely to get UTI in infancy
8) reduces chances of epididynitis
9) reduces the chance at balanitis
10) reduces the chance of several skin diseases, like chancroid
11) makes your penis look like the coolest torpedo ever
12) women prefer circumcised penises
I don't know why people seem to think that circumcision somehow negatively impacts masturbation in any way, perhaps they should try jerking me off
Shall we put this down as a vote for "Yes, circumcision does reduce sensitivity" then? Because there's no way in hell I can jerk off with the foreskin rolled back and without a healthy amount of lubricant. Even with the lubricant it narrowly skates the edge between pleasurable and painful.
Sucks for you, I guess. The skin on the shaft slides just as easily on a circumcised penis as an uncut one.
I really fail to see circumcision as anything more than a (marginally) quantitatively more invasive procedure than ear-piercing. At least circumcision has an ostensible hygienic justification; piercing your ears just makes you look prettier. Yeah, there's a minute chance that you can screw something up when performing a circumcision, but there's a minute chance you can fuck up and tear a gash in someone's ear when piercing them.
Now, if you find piercing the ears of little girls to be a horrific and barbaric practice, then I guess you can't be accused of inconsistency. For me, I could barely muster up any concern when it was claimed that circumcision reduced sensitivity. Now that it doesn't even do that, I really don't care either way.
Not intending to start a huge debate here, but circumcision is obviously significantly more invasive than ear piercing. Ear piercing is a simple puncture of a largely useless piece of flesh, which will heal on its own given time. You can't really compare that to the complete excision of several inches of erogenous skin, complete with nerve endings which will never grow back.
'Course they are similar in that no reasonable person would consider doing it to a child if it weren't socially acceptable.
You know there are some societies where men prefer their women circumcised. Didn't the civilized world opt nay?
Except that the women were against it. I am for circumcision if it gets me the ladies, therefore it's not a 1:1 comparison at all. Okay, seriously, Seacrest OUT.
I don't know why people seem to think that circumcision somehow negatively impacts masturbation in any way, perhaps they should try jerking me off
Shall we put this down as a vote for "Yes, circumcision does reduce sensitivity" then? Because there's no way in hell I can jerk off with the foreskin rolled back and without a healthy amount of lubricant. Even with the lubricant it narrowly skates the edge between pleasurable and painful.
Sucks for you, I guess. The skin on the shaft slides just as easily on a circumcised penis as an uncut one.
I really fail to see circumcision as anything more than a (marginally) quantitatively more invasive procedure than ear-piercing. At least circumcision has an ostensible hygienic justification; piercing your ears just makes you look prettier. Yeah, there's a minute chance that you can screw something up when performing a circumcision, but there's a minute chance you can fuck up and tear a gash in someone's ear when piercing them.
Now, if you find piercing the ears of little girls to be a horrific and barbaric practice, then I guess you can't be accused of inconsistency. For me, I could barely muster up any concern when it was claimed that circumcision reduced sensitivity. Now that it doesn't even do that, I really don't care either way.
Not intending to start a huge debate here, but circumcision is obviously significantly more invasive than ear piercing. Ear piercing is a simple puncture of a largely useless piece of flesh, which will heal on its own given time. You can't really compare that to the complete excision of several inches of erogenous skin, complete with nerve endings which will never grow back.
'Course they are similar in that no reasonable person would consider doing it to a child if it weren't socially acceptable.
It isn't "several inches", that's an obvious exaggeration. Also, the idea that circumcision reduces the sensation because it removes nerve endings is retarded. The excess is all loose, floppy skin that likely won't be getting much action anyways unless whichever cunt you're fucking is loose enough to allow it inside anyways.
I'd like for people to acknowledge the only real reason circumcision is socially acceptable is the pseudo-religious nature of the procedure. If people wanted ot go lopping other parts of their babies off we'd take pretty strong exception ot it.
I'd like for people to acknowledge the only real reason circumcision is socially acceptable is the pseudo-religious nature of the procedure. If people wanted ot go lopping other parts of their babies off we'd take pretty strong exception ot it.
This is true. Not a single person has pointed out why I couldn't clip my kid's ears for a sharper, more stream lined effect.
Quid on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
I really fail to see circumcision as anything more than a (marginally) quantitatively more invasive procedure than ear-piercing. At least circumcision has an ostensible hygienic justification; piercing your ears just makes you look prettier. Yeah, there's a minute chance that you can screw something up when performing a circumcision, but there's a minute chance you can fuck up and tear a gash in someone's ear when piercing them.
Now, if you find piercing the ears of little girls to be a horrific and barbaric practice, then I guess you can't be accused of inconsistency. For me, I could barely muster up any concern when it was claimed that circumcision reduced sensitivity. Now that it doesn't even do that, I really don't care either way.
Not intending to start a huge debate here, but circumcision is obviously significantly more invasive than ear piercing. Ear piercing is a simple puncture of a largely useless piece of flesh, which will heal on its own given time. You can't really compare that to the complete excision of several inches of erogenous skin, complete with nerve endings which will never grow back.
'Course they are similar in that no reasonable person would consider doing it to a child if it weren't socially acceptable.
It isn't "several inches", that's an obvious exaggeration. Also, the idea that circumcision reduces the sensation because it removes nerve endings is retarded. The excess is all loose, floppy skin that likely won't be getting much action anyways unless whichever cunt you're fucking is loose enough to allow it inside anyways.
O_o
How familiar are you, exactly, with the mechanics of sex?
It isn't "several inches", that's an obvious exaggeration. Also, the idea that circumcision reduces the sensation because it removes nerve endings is retarded. The excess is all loose, floppy skin that likely won't be getting much action anyways unless whichever cunt you're fucking is loose enough to allow it inside anyways.
Sorry, that should have been "square inches". Although the adult foreskin is measured in inches however you do it.
Regardless, you clearly don't have a totally clear idea of how it operates with regards to penetration.
Adrien on
0
Options
FalloutGIRL'S DAYWAS PRETTY GOOD WHILE THEY LASTEDRegistered Userregular
I'd like for people to acknowledge the only real reason circumcision is socially acceptable is the pseudo-religious nature of the procedure. If people wanted ot go lopping other parts of their babies off we'd take pretty strong exception ot it.
If you can somehow find an equally worthless part of a baby, I doubt it. Oh, and, you know... All the health reasons Imbalance listed. But thanks for trying!
I don't know why people seem to think that circumcision somehow negatively impacts masturbation in any way, perhaps they should try jerking me off
Shall we put this down as a vote for "Yes, circumcision does reduce sensitivity" then? Because there's no way in hell I can jerk off with the foreskin rolled back and without a healthy amount of lubricant. Even with the lubricant it narrowly skates the edge between pleasurable and painful.
Sucks for you, I guess. The skin on the shaft slides just as easily on a circumcised penis as an uncut one.
Mmmkay, that's totally not true.
god, do i have to make a video for you people or something?
I'd like for people to acknowledge the only real reason circumcision is socially acceptable is the pseudo-religious nature of the procedure.
Yeah, pretty much. All these "facts" about reduced risk of whatever (almost all of which seem to be called into question in that very same wikipedia article) are just after-the-fact justifications for something that is really silly outside of a religious/cultural context.
It's the same kind of silliness as neck-extending people, though not to the same degree.
I really fail to see circumcision as anything more than a (marginally) quantitatively more invasive procedure than ear-piercing. At least circumcision has an ostensible hygienic justification; piercing your ears just makes you look prettier. Yeah, there's a minute chance that you can screw something up when performing a circumcision, but there's a minute chance you can fuck up and tear a gash in someone's ear when piercing them.
Now, if you find piercing the ears of little girls to be a horrific and barbaric practice, then I guess you can't be accused of inconsistency. For me, I could barely muster up any concern when it was claimed that circumcision reduced sensitivity. Now that it doesn't even do that, I really don't care either way.
Not intending to start a huge debate here, but circumcision is obviously significantly more invasive than ear piercing. Ear piercing is a simple puncture of a largely useless piece of flesh, which will heal on its own given time. You can't really compare that to the complete excision of several inches of erogenous skin, complete with nerve endings which will never grow back.
'Course they are similar in that no reasonable person would consider doing it to a child if it weren't socially acceptable.
It isn't "several inches", that's an obvious exaggeration. Also, the idea that circumcision reduces the sensation because it removes nerve endings is retarded. The excess is all loose, floppy skin that likely won't be getting much action anyways unless whichever cunt you're fucking is loose enough to allow it inside anyways.
O_o
How familiar are you, exactly, with the mechanics of sex?
uh
pretty damn familiar
less so with an unsightly bit of extra skin around my dong, so you'll have to forgive me if my poor mutilated ass doesn't understand the divine pleasures i've been denied
Posts
Sure this has been said, but just in case: then it's a good thing that there are clear medical advantages to circumcision, such as a significantly lesser rate of contracting / spreading many STD's (particularly topical ones).
I know someone who got to choose. They said it was verrrry painful.
What ten year olds are having unprotected sex? It's something you can choose to have when you're fifteen/sixteen if you feel that particular advantage is important to you.
Why are you so passionate about babies not getting circumcised? I feel like we're going in circles, where someone lists an advantage, then you minimize it, as if you're being assaulted by the circumcision police. To be honest, if I WAS going to get my penis cut, I'd much rather do it when I was a baby and had no use for it than when I was 15 and could remember the PAIN OF CUTTING MY PENIS.
I've never heard a circumcised person complain that they're mad of the lack of choice. If we, the circumcised public, don't care, then let it be. I have yet to see a reason NOT to get it circumcised other than a lack of sensitivity and the initial pain felt by a baby. I don't think I'm scarred (emotionally, of course) by the whole process, nor is the majority of people out there.
Me and my penis are good. Sanitary reasons? STD prevention? Who cares! It just looks cool. Like a torpedo or rocket or something.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
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?
The reason not to get circumcised have already been repeatedly stated, read back in the thread if you need to find out why many see it as wrong.
Also you can't remember pain and it's not like we hold people down whilst the operations carried out, we have invented these wonderful drugs called painkillers.
The only reason you think it looks cool is because you were brought up with it as the norm, you'd be seen as a freak by many outside of the states.
Probably not but the idea of picking 'stuff' out from under foreskin sounds pretty gross.
Does pulling back the foreskin in the shower sound like that much trouble to you guys? Honestly? Do you bitch about brushing your teeth too? Shaving?
I mean Christ.
I'm pretty sure a lot of "gross" activities are involved when you shower. Wiping between one's ass cheeks isn't a bed of roses but we don't slice those off.
Okay, this thing just mystifies me. Do you cut dudes just not wash your dick, or what? How long do you think it takes to retract a foreskin?
We don't, but maybe we should.
Now, if you find piercing the ears of little girls to be a horrific and barbaric practice, then I guess you can't be accused of inconsistency. For me, I could barely muster up any concern when it was claimed that circumcision reduced sensitivity. Now that it doesn't even do that, I really don't care either way.
Let's just assume I'm lazy / don't want to read through 23 pages / have read through half that and haven't found any better anti- reason than equating it to child abuse / would like to hear an anti- reason which measures up to, y'know, serious disease prevention in the pro- position.
I'm not, and not particularly bothered either way (though I do remember when I lived in the US it being very rare & odd to girls, but they were teenagers so what the hell did we know), but if I were a) arsed, b) willing to waste the sex time, I'd be quite happy having it done.
Totally see why it's retarded for religious reasons, and performed as ceremony rather than medically. But that aside really just interested in why people are actively anti- considering the medical reasons, since I haven't seen any serious reasons that trump a lower rate of STD contraction; choice may be an issue (and check my previous posts, I'm not exactly an anti-choice cheerleader for the State), but you aren't complaining about vaccinations or all sorts of medical things we do to kids when they are too young to fight us off - as you point out, we don't remember pain, and we use painkillers, the potential sexual side-effects are really negligable, ie vanity preference or less sensitivity, AKA oh nos lasting longer...what's the problem again?
Ears are neither genitals nor are they (to my knowledge) an erogenous zone of any kind. Also, I've yet to meet any family that forces ear piercings on an infant. If a man wants to be circumcised, he eventually will. Why negate that option, however marginal?
Of course, if they're ignorant enough to do so, why do we care what they think, again?
1) removes body part without permission
2) reduces sensitivity
3) complications occur in 2-10% of circumcisions, or as The Cat put it, 1/300 (although hers wasn't quoted from any source)
4) the foreskin protects sensitive area of the penis
With that said, here's the reasons FOR circumcision:
1) don't have to clean penis
2) don't have to roll back foreskin for any reason (sex, using the restroom, etc)
3) reduces the risk of AIDS, 2/3 less likely
4) reduces the risk of prostate cancer by 2x
5) reduces the risk of HPV in men, and cervical cancer in women
6) reduces the risk of penile cancer
7) children are 3-7 times less likely to get UTI in infancy
8) reduces chances of epididynitis
9) reduces the chance at balanitis
10) reduces the chance of several skin diseases, like chancroid
11) makes your penis look like the coolest torpedo ever
12) women prefer circumcised penises
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
Sucks for you, I guess. The skin on the shaft slides just as easily on a circumcised penis as an uncut one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision
Knock yourself out. I gotta go play Taboo with some hot ladies.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
11) makes your penis look like the coolest torpedo ever
92% of doctors agree on this one.
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN! :P
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
Of course, someone who isn't circumsized probably wouldn't see it as 'special attention' at all.
Women prefer circumcised penises (or peni as I like to call them).
http://www.circlist.com/preferences/womenspref.html
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
Not intending to start a huge debate here, but circumcision is obviously significantly more invasive than ear piercing. Ear piercing is a simple puncture of a largely useless piece of flesh, which will heal on its own given time. You can't really compare that to the complete excision of several inches of erogenous skin, complete with nerve endings which will never grow back.
'Course they are similar in that no reasonable person would consider doing it to a child if it weren't socially acceptable.
You know there are some societies where men prefer their women circumcised. Didn't the civilized world opt nay?
Except that the women were against it. I am for circumcision if it gets me the ladies, therefore it's not a 1:1 comparison at all. Okay, seriously, Seacrest OUT.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
Mmmkay, that's totally not true.
The difference between female circumcision and male circumcision is that female circumcision was almost always used as a form of gender oppression.
It isn't "several inches", that's an obvious exaggeration. Also, the idea that circumcision reduces the sensation because it removes nerve endings is retarded. The excess is all loose, floppy skin that likely won't be getting much action anyways unless whichever cunt you're fucking is loose enough to allow it inside anyways.
O_o
How familiar are you, exactly, with the mechanics of sex?
Sorry, that should have been "square inches". Although the adult foreskin is measured in inches however you do it.
Regardless, you clearly don't have a totally clear idea of how it operates with regards to penetration.
If you can somehow find an equally worthless part of a baby, I doubt it. Oh, and, you know... All the health reasons Imbalance listed. But thanks for trying!
god, do i have to make a video for you people or something?
It's the same kind of silliness as neck-extending people, though not to the same degree.
uh
pretty damn familiar
less so with an unsightly bit of extra skin around my dong, so you'll have to forgive me if my poor mutilated ass doesn't understand the divine pleasures i've been denied