Circumcision: a Pillar of American ignorance

[Darth_Dude]

Jesus Christ. Talk about insulting every who has ever been circumcised...

It's not for 'cosmetic' reasons buddy, circumcision's can happen for medical reasons, and is also a requirement of some religions. Circumcision has also been proven to lower risk of certain diseases pertaining to male genitalia.

I'm circumsised, and I'm not in pain every day, it's not "some horrible deformity or mutilation"

God damn.

There are no proven benefits to circumcision. Its only recommended when there is a problem with the foreskin, which is rare. Modern medicine defines circumcision as a cosmetic procedure with no proven benefits outside emergency surgery.

I just googled 'Medical benefits' of circumcision, and found a ton of sites.

Here's the wikipedia page about the medical analysis of Circumcision, with plenty of citations I might add. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision#Potential_benefits

And I found this website too, http://www.circinfo.net/
It has pretty substantial medical reasons for circumcision.

 

[Rodrigo Girao]

Here's the wikipedia page about the medical analysis of Circumcision, with plenty of citations I might add. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision#Potential_benefits

Sadly, Wikipedia's articles on circumcision have been pretty much hijacked by JakeW [http://www.circleaks.org/index.php?title=Jake_H._Waskett].

And I found this website too, http://www.circinfo.net/

A site owned by Brian Morris [http://www.circleaks.org/index.php?title=Brian_J._Morris].

Shit... you happened to bump into the two most notorious circumfetishists out there. You pretty much went to the worst possible sources! If you're going to trust those freaks with this subject, you might as well ask Phyllis Schlafly about feminism, or ask Anita Bryant about gay rights, or ask Steve Ballmer about the free software movement, or ask Carly Fiorina about corporate management.

 

[Aprilgold]

Reliable citation needed for anyone claiming that circumcision makes sex any less enjoyable.

I agree.

Still, fuck off, its a religious thing, its not a national thing. I'm circumcised and I think I like it better then Uncircumcised, if I ever were. Since it seems easier to clean then the foreskin. And the foreskin can be painful too.

Oh, for fuck's sake, these arguments are just getting redundant now. Please read the thread before you post in the future because I'm not going to sit here and refute your arguments repeatedly.

Call on me when you come up with an original argument for why it's okay to unnecessarily cut little boys' dicks without their content.

Isn't medical reasons valid? Along with religious reasons?

Anyways, I don't mind being circumcised, not one bit. Hell, I'm a bit of a neat freak anyway, so I couldn't really deal with my Jimmy getting stuff right next to the head if I went a week without shower.

Medical reasons are done out of necessity. An extreme rarity.

Religious reasons tend to not have any evidence to back them. They are only backed by ancient scripture that has been edited multiple times and is taken as the word of God. Hardly compelling.

The argument is circumcision at birth. A very different argument from what you're trying to argue. This fear about intact penises is overblown. Its the same bullshit as a pastor saying "Muslims are all terrorists."

I played with a uncircumcised dick once on a fellow, and I have to say, I saw things underneath that foreskin I never want to see again.

In a society point, yes its out of proportion. And, honestly, your argument on the religion one can be used for anything in religion, but that doesn't stop people from following their magical friend around.

 

[Treblaine]

At this point in out modern society, there is little justification for such an act, yet America continues this ridiculous practice, for largely cosmetic reasons, along with the ideology, "I was, so my son will be". Is this not insane? It is absurd to perform surgery based on cosmetic reasons unless of some horrible deformity or mutilation. Besides, the foreskin offers more pleasure, and keeps the head lubricated. Many people perform this act, because they do no know the alternative, and that is truly tragic. Throughout Eurasia, and the rest of the world circumcision is on the decline, because people have recognized these truths for over half a century. The only reason (Outside of religion), is that is can reduce the chances of catching HIV, something that has been huge problem within 3rd-world countries, but why not offer condoms instead of a permanent surgical solution, reintroduce the female condom, an older tool originally intended to offer women the tool necessary to keep themselves safe. What say you? This is not an attack, only an outcry.

As someone who suffers (and I mean suffer) from Phimosis (NSFW wikipedia link) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis], circumcision is far from cosmetic. It is entirely practical.

A lot of people have hereditary phimosis and dealing with it in adulthood is a lot more painful, expensive and debilitating than in infancy where of course you have zero memory and it is inherently easier procedure for other factors.

And even beyond phimosis the foreskin is a liability, it can be cleft in "vigorous" activities. Also I'll have you know we are not living in an era of "post-infection" we are living in a world of HIV and anti-biotic resistant bacteria, the foreskin remains a huge liability in terms of infection.

We are living in a world where we really need to replace the foreskin with an artificial one, the condom.

Either that or we lead far FAR more celibate lifestyles.

PS: foreskin doesn't offer more pleasure, as pleasure is FAR more complicated than simply number of nerve cells. Only the concentration of nerves would suggest more pleasure, In my experience it merely means more pain! In all the weirdness of the internet I haven't found anyone gets jollies from someone playing with their foreskin, they do like it when their loved one plays with their actual wang. I've found thousands who get jollies from begin kicked in the balls though... weird.

 

[Rodrigo Girao]

I played with a uncircumcised dick once on a fellow, and I have to say, I saw things underneath that foreskin I never want to see again.

By that reasoning: I once knew someone who had lice, therefore everyone should shave their heads.

 

[Rodrigo Girao]

As someone who suffers (and I mean suffer) from Phimosis (NSFW wikipedia link) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis], circumcision is far from cosmetic. It is entirely practical.

Which - why do I have to repeat myself? - can be treated by more conservative means, such as steroid creams or preputioplasty. Circumcision is valid, yes, as a LAST RESORT after all else failed.

And even beyond phimosis the foreskin is a liability, it can be cleft in "vigorous" activities. Also I'll have you know we are not living in an era of "post-infection" we are living in a world of HIV and anti-biotic resistant bacteria, the foreskin remains a huge liability in terms of infection.

What a load of bullshit. Real world numbers show that circumcision DOES NOT protect against the HIV. That damn table again:

PS: foreskin doesn't offer more pleasure, as pleasure is FAR more complicated than simply number of nerve cells. Only the concentration of nerves would suggest more pleasure, In my experience it merely means more pain!

Maybe your phimosis makes you just an itty bitty unreliable to judge that.

 

[Treblaine]

Here's the wikipedia page about the medical analysis of Circumcision, with plenty of citations I might add. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision#Potential_benefits

Sadly, Wikipedia's articles on circumcision have been pretty much hijacked by JakeW [http://www.circleaks.org/index.php?title=Jake_H._Waskett].

And I found this website too, http://www.circinfo.net/

A site owned by Brian Morris [http://www.circleaks.org/index.php?title=Brian_J._Morris].

Shit... you happened to bump into the two most notorious circumfetishists out there. You pretty much went to the worst possible sources! If you're going to trust those freaks with this subject, you might as well ask Phyllis Schlafly about feminism, or ask Anita Bryant about gay rights, or ask Steve Ballmer about the free software movement, or ask Carly Fiorina about corporate management.

You know it is one thing to passionately argue your side of the argument... but it is a whole other thing to say the entire other side of the argument has no right to even make an argument Or should be dismissed outright simply for having their very stance.

You are blatantly "shooting the messenger". A clear logical fallacy. It shouldn't matter who says it, it should matter the very merit of what they say. Something you have not addressed.

Also "circumfetishist"? Seriously? You sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist coming up with nonsense terms like that. I don't know if you are or are not, that's just the way you seem. Also it's pretty bloody rude to people like me where circumcision is far from a fetish but an entirely necessary medical procedure to treat Phimosis. No one has had their sex life debilitated by properly performed circumcision as much as by phimosis.

 

[Darth_Dude]

Here's the wikipedia page about the medical analysis of Circumcision, with plenty of citations I might add. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision#Potential_benefits

Sadly, Wikipedia's articles on circumcision have been pretty much hijacked by JakeW [http://www.circleaks.org/index.php?title=Jake_H._Waskett].

And I found this website too, http://www.circinfo.net/

A site owned by Brian Morris [http://www.circleaks.org/index.php?title=Brian_J._Morris].

Shit... you happened to bump into the two most notorious circumfetishists out there. You pretty much went to the worst possible sources! If you're going to trust those freaks with this subject, you might as well ask Phyllis Schlafly about feminism, or ask Anita Bryant about gay rights, or ask Steve Ballmer about the free software movement, or ask Carly Fiorina about corporate management.

....
I did?

Well.................that's awkward.

 

[sumanoskae]

What concerns me more is the psychological effect it could have on a newborn.

 

[trollax]

What concerns me more is the psychological effect it could have on a newborn.

like what would they be?

 

[AngloDoom]

Reliable citation needed for anyone claiming that circumcision makes sex any less enjoyable.

This. Last time a thread like this appeared I got pissed off with the escapist. A number of bullshit claims made by people about the negative effects of circumcision. People act like anti-abortionists on this site when talking about this subject. I have not posted on this site since because of how pissed off I was but now that reddit is down I will give it a shot.

here is my monologue from last time:

"I have never EVER seen a thread more full of confirmation bias and recursive/circular logic.

This is a bad argument it is a shame to see this happen. There is basically no difference. The medical benefits and weaknesses cancel on both sides. It should be at the discretion of the parents...why? simple. You see if someone is circumcised as a baby they will NEVER know what they missed and they will not remember any pain. If they are uncircumcised as a baby they will not know what they missed and if they REALLY want a circumcision on top of that they can have a painful surgery and get it; if not then cool same.

Circumcision is a non invasive non damaging procedure that has little effect on ones life.

For the record I am circumcised, I was circumcised as a baby and I am content because I don't know what I missed out on and quite happily live the life of any normal penis owner.

Also: The evidence I have seen on both sides is a large amount of hot air. One thing that is fact is that people without foreskins will find it easier to clean the penis. Does this mean that people with foreskins will have unclean penises? NO of course not it can be cleaned with effort. So once again no difference. Less sensitivity? bull crap you don't know what you have missed. Quite frankly it's hard to imagine a higher level of pleasure than sexual if you are circumcised so you can't even IMAGINE what you have missed.

Also to those who think nobody should be circumcised:

Man you people who say nobody should be circumcised and it is just done because of religion. You are enforcing your opinions on others just as much as the fanatics you speak of, given the chance you would ban circumcision. Well how about this how about I pretend I am a religious fanatic I should say that "Nobody should be uncircumcised, its unnatural because it is against gods word". Who are you to define natural, who are you to be so selfish."

So your view is that, if it happens when you're young, it won't matter because you can't remember what it was like?

So can I scarify my kid when it's born? I mean, I totally think scarification looks awesome, and I know lots of people who do. In fact, lots of people I know have it, so if I do it when the child is young then it'll save them the hassle and pain of doing it later, right?

No, of course not. You don't get the right to alter someone's body irreversibly to fit in with what you think looks better. Where I come from, white guys are considered more attractive than black guys - if I happened to have a black child, should I change the colour of it's skin to fit in with the rest of the kids? No, of course not.

The problem I have is everyone is quite fine risking their child's life over nothing. Any surgery is a risk and all they are doing it for is because everyone else has jumped off that same bridge.

I'll refer you to my previous comments:

Honestly, so far when reading this topic the only arguments I've seen for having circumcision forced (and it is forced) on an infant are:

- My penis is fine, I can totally remember what sex was like before circumcision when I was fifteen minutes old.
- It looks better when you're raised in a society where you only see one and not the other.
- The father has it, but I won't mention how the dad also has tattoos, piercings...
- It's cleaner when you live in a cave and haven't heard of washing.
- It's my decision to do what I do to permanently affect another person.

If someone gave me a reasonable answer for having unnecessary surgery on an infant for almost entirely cosmetic reasons then I'd concede that it is, indeed, their choice.

However, for now I cannot help but see why it's any different to scarifying your favourite band into your child's thigh at birth.

[/quote]

Just give me a single reason to risk your kid's life and put them through pain that is actually half-valid and I'll start considering whether, until you hit sixteen, that your parent should have full control of how your body - in the most intimate places that they will never see past a certain age and that you will naturally want to have a sense of confidence in - should look.

 

[sumanoskae]

What concerns me more is the psychological effect it could have on a newborn.

like what would they be?

I can't speak from hard statistics, but I would imagine that if one of the first sensations you experience upon entering the world is having the skin of your genitals cut off, you could develop some problems. Perhaps issues of trust, resentment towards authority, maybe mild paranoia.

 

[retyopy]

I'm circumcised, hasn't traumatized me so far. And yeah, I'm aware that the foreskin offers 'more pleasure,' but what the hoo ha, man, I'll deal. I question why my parents had me circumcised, since they barely celebrate Jewish holidays and attend syneagogune, but it isn't making me suffer immeasurable pain day to day. Maybe it is stupid. Maybe outside of religion, it should be abandoned. What's the point here? There's no real discussion value.

[sub][sub][sub][sub]American ignorance? Specifically AMERICAN ignorance? Take a deep breath, don't rage at him...[/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub]

 

[Treblaine]

At this point in out modern society, there is little justification for such an act, yet America continues this ridiculous practice, for largely cosmetic reasons, along with the ideology, "I was, so my son will be". Is this not insane? It is absurd to perform surgery based on cosmetic reasons unless of some horrible deformity or mutilation. Besides, the foreskin offers more pleasure, and keeps the head lubricated. Many people perform this act, because they do no know the alternative, and that is truly tragic. Throughout Eurasia, and the rest of the world circumcision is on the decline, because people have recognized these truths for over half a century. The only reason (Outside of religion), is that is can reduce the chances of catching HIV, something that has been huge problem within 3rd-world countries, but why not offer condoms instead of a permanent surgical solution, reintroduce the female condom, an older tool originally intended to offer women the tool necessary to keep themselves safe. What say you? This is not an attack, only an outcry.

As someone who suffers (and I mean suffer) from Phimosis (NSFW wikipedia link) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis], circumcision is far from cosmetic. It is entirely practical.

A lot of people have hereditary phimosis and dealing with it in adulthood is a lot more painful, expensive and debilitating than in infancy where of course you have zero memory and it is inherently easier procedure for other factors.

And even beyond phimosis the foreskin is a liability, it can be cleft in "vigorous" activities. Also I'll have you know we are not living in an era of "post-infection" we are living in a world of HIV and anti-biotic resistant bacteria, the foreskin remains a huge liability in terms of infection.

We are living in a world where we really need to replace the foreskin with an artificial one, the condom.

Either that or we lead far FAR more celibate lifestyles.

PS: foreskin doesn't offer more pleasure, as pleasure is FAR more complicated than simply number of nerve cells. Only the concentration of nerves would suggest more pleasure, In my experience it merely means more pain! In all the weirdness of the internet I haven't found anyone gets jollies from someone playing with their foreskin, they do like it when their loved one plays with their actual wang. I've found thousands who get jollies from begin kicked in the balls though... weird.

phimosis effects around 1-5% of the population. Its hardly a reason to circumcise the majority. The HIV rate in non circumcising countries are LOW, and HIV rates in circumcision performing countries are HIGH. The OPPOSITE of what you claim.

If what you say is true, America and Africa should have NO HIV and Europe should have all of the HIV. That is not the case.

super infections? really? Your invoking the medical BOOGEYMAN? Infections of that magnitude is INCREDIBLY RARE.

Seriously, your post is blatant biased fear mongering.

Yeah, well my situation may only make up 5% of people (or 10% of men, or whatever) but I'd still like some recognition before everyone jumps on the anti-circumcision bandwagon.

And no one is "circumcising the majority" there is NO LAW that mandates circumcision, it is done on an individual basis. And don't give be that too young to choose bullcrap, parents make a thousand god damn decisions for their children in their best interests.

No one is claiming Circumcision is the perfect cure for HIV, merely stem the tide.

In fact in Sub-Saharan Africa where HIV infection is at critical population debilitating. Levels circumcision is very rare, the the point where international organisations have to encourage and pay for it. North America and Middle East are areas with the highest proportion of circumcised males, where HIV infection is at lower prevalence than Africa or South America. But that is coincidence mainly.

"super infections? really? Your invoking the medical BOOGEYMAN?"

I never used the word "super-infection" and I never would as that would be scare mongering, something I did not do and you are trying to distort the record as if I did.

Blatant Straw Man argument.

This is not a "BOOGEYMAN" it is a very serious subject.
My point of bringing up Antibiotic-resistant bacteria (which are not incredibly rare, their increasing prevalence is highly credible) is the only solution for the foreseeable future can be to reduce and limit transfer rate, that drugs cannot be the solution. And same with HIV with any sign of a vaccine like the flying-car and economical-fusion always "ten years away" the broad strategy IS to limit spread and contain infections. One of the biggest revolutions with modern HIV treatments is the patient is non infectious while under treatment.

 

[Treblaine]

As someone who suffers (and I mean suffer) from Phimosis (NSFW wikipedia link) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis], circumcision is far from cosmetic. It is entirely practical.

Which - why do I have to repeat myself? - can be treated by more conservative means, such as steroid creams or preputioplasty. Circumcision is valid, yes, as a LAST RESORT after all else failed.

And even beyond phimosis the foreskin is a liability, it can be cleft in "vigorous" activities. Also I'll have you know we are not living in an era of "post-infection" we are living in a world of HIV and anti-biotic resistant bacteria, the foreskin remains a huge liability in terms of infection.

What a load of bullshit. Real world numbers show that circumcision DOES NOT protect against the HIV. That damn table again:

PS: foreskin doesn't offer more pleasure, as pleasure is FAR more complicated than simply number of nerve cells. Only the concentration of nerves would suggest more pleasure, In my experience it merely means more pain!

Maybe your phimosis makes you just an itty bitty unreliable to judge that.

Not in my case, buddy. Don't give me medical advice on my own genitals.

Your "real world numbers" are far too broad. It's like comparing proportion of gun deaths in USA and Switzerland against prevalence of gun ownership, it doesn't address what might be the actual cause of violent crime: deprivation (or for spread of HIV: poor sex education). And your statistics do not paint a clear picture, they are not a scientific comparison with control. Where is the control group? It cannot be completely different countries!

Lies, damn lies and statistics. Your table does not account for time or incidence or further infection, it seems like an incredibly lazy study. It does not look at WHEN they were circumcised and if the rate of transmission has gone down SINCE they have been circumcised. Did this study factor for how people who are AT RISK might go out of their way to have a circumcision? You know, the so called "volvo effect" where people get a sense of safety then take greater risks that offset the safety benefit itself.

Your table data is irrelevant for it's critical lack of detail.

I remember reading in the New Scientist a study with control groups that did show much lower prevalence of infection amongst circumcised men. Now once infected they transmitted it just as much as any other (in ejaculate) but the transfer in reverse. I could find it but I'm looking at a 1-foot high pile of back issues and have no idea which week it came out.