I dont understand the reasoning that extra skin can cause increased risk of STDs, urinary tract issues, or whatever else.
Please provide evidence of this, because I just can't accept that at face value.
I can't explain any of this. I'm not a researcher, nor do I have the background to explain how any of this works. All I can do is point you in the direction of the relevant studies.
Why are people still pretending that there aren't any benefits to circumcision? Circumcised men do have lower rates of things like urinary tract infections, certain skin/tissue conditions, and lower chances of catching at least some STDs.
No sound studies have shown any statistically significant benefits for circumcised men versus uncircumcised men.
I invite you to provide us with one that says otherwise.
Numerous published studies there. Feel free to refute them all.
Did you not see the entire page?
American Cancer Society:
"In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This suggestion was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. However, most researchers now believe those studies were flawed because they failed to consider other factors that are now known to affect penile cancer risk.
Whether circumcision actually reduces risk is uncertain.
One line of reasoning is based on comparisons of risk across countries. Penile cancer is much less common in Israel, where nearly everyone is circumcised, than in the United States where only some men are. However, this comparison does not take into account other known risk factors such as the number of sexual partners, smoking, or personal hygiene. Furthermore, the risk of penile cancer in Denmark, where very few men are circumcised, is no higher than that in the United States.
Recent studies have found that circumcised men are less likely to be infected with HPV, even after this risk is adjusted for differences in sexual behavior. Other studies suggest that circumcision may reduce the risk of more invasive forms of penile cancer. However, it is important that the issue of circumcision not distract the public's attention from avoiding known penile cancer risk factors – poor hygiene, having unprotected sex with multiple partners (increasing the likelihood of human papillomavirus infection), and cigarette smoking."
Furthermore, you have to understand that many of the studies done in the past few years about the "benefits of circumcision" have been done by groups with clear agendas, and the tests were constructed to reflect their biases.
Why are people still pretending that there aren't any benefits to circumcision? Circumcised men do have lower rates of things like urinary tract infections, certain skin/tissue conditions, and lower chances of catching at least some STDs.
No sound studies have shown any statistically significant benefits for circumcised men versus uncircumcised men.
I invite you to provide us with one that says otherwise.
Numerous published studies there. Feel free to refute them all.
Did you not see the entire page?
American Cancer Society:
"In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This suggestion was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. However, most researchers now believe those studies were flawed because they failed to consider other factors that are now known to affect penile cancer risk.
Whether circumcision actually reduces risk is uncertain.
One line of reasoning is based on comparisons of risk across countries. Penile cancer is much less common in Israel, where nearly everyone is circumcised, than in the United States where only some men are. However, this comparison does not take into account other known risk factors such as the number of sexual partners, smoking, or personal hygiene. Furthermore, the risk of penile cancer in Denmark, where very few men are circumcised, is no higher than that in the United States.
Recent studies have found that circumcised men are less likely to be infected with HPV, even after this risk is adjusted for differences in sexual behavior. Other studies suggest that circumcision may reduce the risk of more invasive forms of penile cancer. However, it is important that the issue of circumcision not distract the public's attention from avoiding known penile cancer risk factors – poor hygiene, having unprotected sex with multiple partners (increasing the likelihood of human papillomavirus infection), and cigarette smoking."
Furthermore, you have to understand that many of the studies done in the past few years about the "benefits of circumcision" have been done by groups with clear agendas, and the tests were constructed to reflect their biases.
Did you not see the entire page? Or the rest of my post, which you cut off? I'll quote the next sentence of that again in case you missed it:
As noted there, the first few things on that list are dubious.
Read the rest of the damn page.
An example the study I linked. Does the Infectious Diseases Epidemiology Unit at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine have a clear pro-circumcision bias? I mean, it might. I haven't researched its background or anything.
At less than a year old, a child cannot make a choice, and it's up to their parents to make the choice for them.
Why should decisions be made for a child before that child is able to so much as fully discern its environment?
You've shown us some crazy people who can't accept the fact that they got a little cut up as infants and instead hurt themselves for years at a time to 'undo' the damage as 'proof' that it's wrong; does it seem reasonable, then, that there are people out there who have not been circumcised (as infants) but wish that they had been?
"You are different, therefor, crazy."
I'm sorry, try again, this is an adult conversation.
Individuals who want to be circumcised can go and get it. As a bonus, they can take the pain much easier than they could as infants, especially since their bodies can handle a good dose of pain medicine.
Likewise, what about people like myself, who believe their parents made the right choice? That's what our parents are there for in those years -- to make decisions we can't make for ourselves, to help us with things we can't do ourselves. Sometimes, yes, parents will make the wrong choice -- but 'don't get circumcised' isn't always the right choice, either. In the end, however, it should be up to the parents, because I really doubt any parents are doing it because they think it will hurt their son.
You're very well-trained and I'm glad you like it?
At less than a year old, a child cannot make a choice, and it's up to their parents to make the choice for them.
Why should decisions be made for a child before that child is able to so much as fully discern its environment?
You keep saying this without qualifiers and it is and will always be absolute nonsense. Parenting is about making decisions for a child before it can fully discern its environment. This blanket statement you keep making is valueless.
At less than a year old, a child cannot make a choice, and it's up to their parents to make the choice for them.
Why should decisions be made for a child before that child is able to so much as fully discern its environment?
You keep saying this without qualifiers and it is and will always be absolute nonsense. Parenting is about making decisions for a child before it can fully discern its environment. This blanket statement you keep making is valueless.
Qualifiers Added: Why should medically unneccesary and irreversible decisions be made for a child before that child is able to so much as fully discern its environment?
You keep saying this without qualifiers and it is and will always be absolute nonsense. Parenting is about making decisions for a child before it can fully discern its environment. This blanket statement you keep making is valueless.
Yeah. See. Some parents. Crazy, I know.
Some parents do not decide everything for their kids.
They let their kids. Crazy bastards. They let their kids make decisions on their own in their own time, when they're old enough to weigh their choices.
Even crazier, some parents, who should be locked up, really, actually try to expose a child to as many sides of a choice as possible, so that they can make as informed a decision as possible when the time comes.
But really, that's stupid. We should have more families who operate the way Ketchum_Ash's does, as described earlier on in this thread.
You keep saying this without qualifiers and it is and will always be absolute nonsense. Parenting is about making decisions for a child before it can fully discern its environment. This blanket statement you keep making is valueless.
Yeah. See. Some parents. Crazy, I know.
Some parents do not decide everything for their kids.
They let their kids. Crazy bastards. They let their kids make decisions on their own in their own time, when they're old enough to weigh their choices.
Even crazier, some parents, who should be locked up, really, actually try to expose a child to as many sides of a choice as possible, so that they can make as informed a decision as possible when the time comes.
But really, that's stupid. We should have more families who operate the way Ketchum_Ash's do, as described earlier on in this thread.
No, all parents.
You make decisions for your child. That's an inherent part of parenting. You decide what kind of education they should or should not get. You decide where they should live. You decide what they should eat (their general diet). You decide so very many things for your child when you parent. It's not a matter of choosing to do these things: unless your child pops out of your wife's womb full cognizant and motile and can make every decision for him or herself, then you WILL be making decisions for them. It's not a matter of choosing to do so, it's a matter of, fuck, I dunno, physics? You cannot avoid making decisions for your child.
Whether or not you think parents should decide medical procedures such as circumcision for their child is one thing, but asking why parents should make ANY decisions for their child before they can make their own decisions is a little dense.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
We don't typically remove healthy tissue until after disease is presented.
Why are foreskins an exception? What makes having a foreskin so much more dangerous than having tonsils or an appendix?
What I want to know is this: why I should feel violated for not having a foreskin when I don't feel violated for not having tonsils? Both were medical procedures performed on me without my consent.
I wouldn't get a child circumcised, and I don't think it should be standard operating procedure, however, it's not like covering a child in tats or ramming a rod through their arm. It's the height of retarded relativism to suppose otherwise: culture does matter, qualitative differences among body mods do matter, and 'bodily integrity' is the sort of concept that doesn't stand up to any reasonable scrutiny in the first place.
As for your "I trust parents to do the right thing," what about the rights of the child? I mean, really, we're talking about an honest-to-god person here.
Potential person. A newborn's got a long way to go before they resemble us in anything more than body shape.
I'm sorry, try again, this is an adult conversation.
Do you honestly think that taping weights to your dick to try to undo your circumcision is healthy behavior? Are you just willing to make a blanket statement that whatever body modifications people undergo must be healthy, because it would be hubris on our part to label them as disturbed? Because, frankly, that's retarded.
Things which MUST be decided THEN AND THERE, obviously, they do. They don't really have a choice.
But your foreskin is not going to devour you if you leave it on too long, and by the time your kid is old enough to worry about foreskin-a-phobes seeing their penis, they're generally going to be aware enough to start pondering the topic themselves.
Do you honestly think that taping weights to your dick to try to undo your circumcision is healthy behavior?
Do I have to make lists of weird, unpleasant shit that people do for the benefit of their physical appearance again?
The entire world engages in vast amounts of unhealthy behavior. This is not exceptional in that regard.
I mean, shit, people smoke.
Clearly, BATSHIT INSANE.
Are you just willing to make a blanket statement that whatever body modifications people undergo must be healthy, because it would be hubris on our part to label them as disturbed? Because, frankly, that's retarded.
Again. People smoke. Penis stretching isn't crazier than the other weird shit people do.
Incenjucar on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Are you just willing to make a blanket statement that whatever body modifications people undergo must be healthy, because it would be hubris on our part to label them as disturbed? Because, frankly, that's retarded.
Again. People smoke. Penis stretching isn't crazier than the other weird shit people do.
It's easy to take stances when everything is the same.
If anything, being circumcised makes you MORE sensitive. All the uncircumcised guys I know are assholes!
edit: Still waiting for those statistics, Incenjucar. Just sounds like you're trying to "scare" me into an action here with your comment about penises accidentally getting cut off.
Wow..just wow. HAHAHAHA.
P.S Are you a girl? Just wondering.
P.S.S Upon further reading of the thread i realize you are male Drez. Never mind my question. But honestly what the fuck?
If anything, being circumcised makes you MORE sensitive. All the uncircumcised guys I know are assholes!
edit: Still waiting for those statistics, Incenjucar. Just sounds like you're trying to "scare" me into an action here with your comment about penises accidentally getting cut off.
Wow..just wow. HAHAHAHA.
P.S Are you a girl? Just wondering.
P.S.S Upon further reading of the thread i realize you are male Drez. Never mind my question. But honestly what the fuck?
You keep saying this without qualifiers and it is and will always be absolute nonsense. Parenting is about making decisions for a child before it can fully discern its environment. This blanket statement you keep making is valueless.
Yeah. See. Some parents. Crazy, I know.
Some parents do not decide everything for their kids.
They let their kids. Crazy bastards. They let their kids make decisions on their own in their own time, when they're old enough to weigh their choices.
Even crazier, some parents, who should be locked up, really, actually try to expose a child to as many sides of a choice as possible, so that they can make as informed a decision as possible when the time comes.
But really, that's stupid. We should have more families who operate the way Ketchum_Ash's do, as described earlier on in this thread.
No, all parents.
You make decisions for your child. That's an inherent part of parenting. You decide what kind of education they should or should not get. You decide where they should live. You decide what they should eat (their general diet). You decide so very many things for your child when you parent. It's not a matter of choosing to do these things: unless your child pops out of your wife's womb full cognizant and motile and can make every decision for him or herself, then you WILL be making decisions for them. It's not a matter of choosing to do so, it's a matter of, fuck, I dunno, physics? You cannot avoid making decisions for your child.
Whether or not you think parents should decide medical procedures such as circumcision for their child is one thing, but asking why parents should make ANY decisions for their child before they can make their own decisions is a little dense.
Yeah, except with things like circumcision, there is no turning back.
I mean, common sense would suggest that if the decision you are making for your child is non-urgent, and if it will have a permanent physical effect on him, maybe you should wait until the child is old enough to make it himself. Especially since you don't lose anything by waiting. I mean, I don't think many children start having sex at the age of 7.
And not getting circumcised can also lead to problems.
Including loss of penis, yes.
No you don't understand. Getting circumcised can lead to complications during the procedure and that can 'mutilate' the infant. So you choose not to get circumcised alright. But you do realize that there can be problems later in life if you do not get circumcised? It has nothing to do with cleaning. Ever heard of Phimosis? Frenulum breve?
Whichever option you choose can be negative. Would you consider that bad parenting?
We don't typically remove healthy tissue until after disease is presented.
Why are foreskins an exception? What makes having a foreskin so much more dangerous than having tonsils or an appendix?
What I want to know is this: why I should feel violated for not having a foreskin when I don't feel violated for not having tonsils? Both were medical procedures performed on me without my consent.
Well, for starters, I never used the word "violate" and I do see where you're coming from.
That said, you have to recognize that people are generally more attached to the fleshy bits between their legs than they are to the fleshy bits in the back of the throat. If I snapped a picture of you with your mouth open and your uvula hanging visibly and posted it online, I don't think you'd feel nearly as violated as you would if I managed to post a picture taken of you with fly open and your penis hanging out while you were going to the bathroom.
So while I'm not arguing that it's a violation, I do understand why somebody might feel that way.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
No you don't understand. Getting circumcised can lead to complications during the procedure and that can 'mutilate' the infant. So you choose not to get circumcised alright. But you do realize that there can be problems later in life if you do not get circumcised? It has nothing to do with cleaning. Ever heard of Phimosis? Frenulum breve?
So, while we're at it, why not remove the appendix, the tonsils, the extra kidney, extra lung, extra testicle, the extra part of the liver, the prostate... man, all that shit can cause problems later in life.
No you don't understand. Getting circumcised can lead to complications during the procedure and that can 'mutilate' the infant. So you choose not to get circumcised alright. But you do realize that there can be problems later in life if you do not get circumcised? It has nothing to do with cleaning. Ever heard of Phimosis? Frenulum breve?
So, while we're at it, why not remove the appendix, the tonsils, the extra kidney, extra lung, extra testicle, the extra part of the liver, the prostate... man, all that shit can cause problems later in life.
I think every part of one's anatomy can cause problems later in life.
No you don't understand. Getting circumcised can lead to complications during the procedure and that can 'mutilate' the infant. So you choose not to get circumcised alright. But you do realize that there can be problems later in life if you do not get circumcised? It has nothing to do with cleaning. Ever heard of Phimosis? Frenulum breve?
So, while we're at it, why not remove the appendix, the tonsils, the extra kidney, extra lung, extra testicle, the extra part of the liver, the prostate... man, all that shit can cause problems later in life.
You forgot the brain, causes a truckload more problems than anything else.
No you don't understand. Getting circumcised can lead to complications during the procedure and that can 'mutilate' the infant. So you choose not to get circumcised alright. But you do realize that there can be problems later in life if you do not get circumcised? It has nothing to do with cleaning. Ever heard of Phimosis? Frenulum breve?
So, while we're at it, why not remove the appendix, the tonsils, the extra kidney, extra lung, extra testicle, the extra part of the liver, the prostate... man, all that shit can cause problems later in life.
I think every part of one's anatomy can cause problems later in life.
Primarily the brain. Kids simply shouldn't be allowed to think for themselves. That's why they have parents, to do the thinking for them.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
We shouldn't force the infant to eat or wear clothes or diapers. WE should wait until they are old enough to make those decisions.
Unlike circumcision, eating, wearing clothes, and wearing diapers all have substantial medical and physical benefits, not to mention the fact that when the child gets old enough, he can easily decide for himself whether or not he wants to eat, wear clothes, or wear diapers; he cannot decide that he doesn't want to be circumcised.
Posts
Care to actually do some pointing then?
edit: pfff
disregard this retarded post
Did you not see the entire page?
American Cancer Society:
"In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This suggestion was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. However, most researchers now believe those studies were flawed because they failed to consider other factors that are now known to affect penile cancer risk.
Whether circumcision actually reduces risk is uncertain.
One line of reasoning is based on comparisons of risk across countries. Penile cancer is much less common in Israel, where nearly everyone is circumcised, than in the United States where only some men are. However, this comparison does not take into account other known risk factors such as the number of sexual partners, smoking, or personal hygiene. Furthermore, the risk of penile cancer in Denmark, where very few men are circumcised, is no higher than that in the United States.
Recent studies have found that circumcised men are less likely to be infected with HPV, even after this risk is adjusted for differences in sexual behavior. Other studies suggest that circumcision may reduce the risk of more invasive forms of penile cancer. However, it is important that the issue of circumcision not distract the public's attention from avoiding known penile cancer risk factors – poor hygiene, having unprotected sex with multiple partners (increasing the likelihood of human papillomavirus infection), and cigarette smoking."
Furthermore, you have to understand that many of the studies done in the past few years about the "benefits of circumcision" have been done by groups with clear agendas, and the tests were constructed to reflect their biases.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
We should ask them first.
We'll need the baby translator from that Simpsons' episode.
Did you not see the entire page? Or the rest of my post, which you cut off? I'll quote the next sentence of that again in case you missed it:
Read the rest of the damn page.
An example the study I linked. Does the Infectious Diseases Epidemiology Unit at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine have a clear pro-circumcision bias? I mean, it might. I haven't researched its background or anything.
Why should decisions be made for a child before that child is able to so much as fully discern its environment?
"You are different, therefor, crazy."
I'm sorry, try again, this is an adult conversation.
Individuals who want to be circumcised can go and get it. As a bonus, they can take the pain much easier than they could as infants, especially since their bodies can handle a good dose of pain medicine.
You're very well-trained and I'm glad you like it?
You keep saying this without qualifiers and it is and will always be absolute nonsense. Parenting is about making decisions for a child before it can fully discern its environment. This blanket statement you keep making is valueless.
Qualifiers Added: Why should medically unneccesary and irreversible decisions be made for a child before that child is able to so much as fully discern its environment?
Yeah. See. Some parents. Crazy, I know.
Some parents do not decide everything for their kids.
They let their kids. Crazy bastards. They let their kids make decisions on their own in their own time, when they're old enough to weigh their choices.
Even crazier, some parents, who should be locked up, really, actually try to expose a child to as many sides of a choice as possible, so that they can make as informed a decision as possible when the time comes.
But really, that's stupid. We should have more families who operate the way Ketchum_Ash's does, as described earlier on in this thread.
No, all parents.
You make decisions for your child. That's an inherent part of parenting. You decide what kind of education they should or should not get. You decide where they should live. You decide what they should eat (their general diet). You decide so very many things for your child when you parent. It's not a matter of choosing to do these things: unless your child pops out of your wife's womb full cognizant and motile and can make every decision for him or herself, then you WILL be making decisions for them. It's not a matter of choosing to do so, it's a matter of, fuck, I dunno, physics? You cannot avoid making decisions for your child.
Whether or not you think parents should decide medical procedures such as circumcision for their child is one thing, but asking why parents should make ANY decisions for their child before they can make their own decisions is a little dense.
What I want to know is this: why I should feel violated for not having a foreskin when I don't feel violated for not having tonsils? Both were medical procedures performed on me without my consent.
I wouldn't get a child circumcised, and I don't think it should be standard operating procedure, however, it's not like covering a child in tats or ramming a rod through their arm. It's the height of retarded relativism to suppose otherwise: culture does matter, qualitative differences among body mods do matter, and 'bodily integrity' is the sort of concept that doesn't stand up to any reasonable scrutiny in the first place.
Potential person. A newborn's got a long way to go before they resemble us in anything more than body shape.
Do you honestly think that taping weights to your dick to try to undo your circumcision is healthy behavior? Are you just willing to make a blanket statement that whatever body modifications people undergo must be healthy, because it would be hubris on our part to label them as disturbed? Because, frankly, that's retarded.
Things which MUST be decided THEN AND THERE, obviously, they do. They don't really have a choice.
But your foreskin is not going to devour you if you leave it on too long, and by the time your kid is old enough to worry about foreskin-a-phobes seeing their penis, they're generally going to be aware enough to start pondering the topic themselves.
Do I have to make lists of weird, unpleasant shit that people do for the benefit of their physical appearance again?
The entire world engages in vast amounts of unhealthy behavior. This is not exceptional in that regard.
I mean, shit, people smoke.
Clearly, BATSHIT INSANE.
Again. People smoke. Penis stretching isn't crazier than the other weird shit people do.
It's easy to take stances when everything is the same.
Wow..just wow. HAHAHAHA.
P.S Are you a girl? Just wondering.
P.S.S Upon further reading of the thread i realize you are male Drez. Never mind my question. But honestly what the fuck?
The alternative is lying. *shrug*
It's called humor.
Yeah, except with things like circumcision, there is no turning back.
I mean, common sense would suggest that if the decision you are making for your child is non-urgent, and if it will have a permanent physical effect on him, maybe you should wait until the child is old enough to make it himself. Especially since you don't lose anything by waiting. I mean, I don't think many children start having sex at the age of 7.
And not getting circumcised can also lead to problems. Again very low, but it can happen.
So...?
If you are an unwashed hobo.
Including loss of penis, yes.
what the fuck?
No you don't understand. Getting circumcised can lead to complications during the procedure and that can 'mutilate' the infant. So you choose not to get circumcised alright. But you do realize that there can be problems later in life if you do not get circumcised? It has nothing to do with cleaning. Ever heard of Phimosis? Frenulum breve?
Whichever option you choose can be negative. Would you consider that bad parenting?
Well, for starters, I never used the word "violate" and I do see where you're coming from.
That said, you have to recognize that people are generally more attached to the fleshy bits between their legs than they are to the fleshy bits in the back of the throat. If I snapped a picture of you with your mouth open and your uvula hanging visibly and posted it online, I don't think you'd feel nearly as violated as you would if I managed to post a picture taken of you with fly open and your penis hanging out while you were going to the bathroom.
So while I'm not arguing that it's a violation, I do understand why somebody might feel that way.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
http://www.birthjourney.com/circumcision.php
--
What Than said.
I think every part of one's anatomy can cause problems later in life.
True.
Testicles can cause hair loss.
Primarily the brain. Kids simply shouldn't be allowed to think for themselves. That's why they have parents, to do the thinking for them.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
___ can get ____ cancer.
Best to just not have kids.
I hope that is a sarcastic strawman.
I just don't see how taking away a choice can ever really be a good thing.
[sarcasm]
Then why do you want to take away parents' choices to take away choices from their kids?
[/sarcasm]
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Issues of power over others are rarely simple when cultural habits are involved.
So being uncircumcised leads to loss of penis? I think you're confused at to what you wrote.