Circumcision...Yes, I Said Circumcision

That explains EVERYTHING.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

Against it not necessary

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

I'm not against it, I'm not for it.

__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

During my first pregnancy I did the research. I was not swayed by anything other than what was best for my baby.

Do your homework: It is not necessary. It is not beneficial. And studies done on babies receiving the procedure (in hospitals) show that they go into what can only be described as a minor state of shock at the procedure.

I came to the conclusion that our options were either no circumcision or circumcision by a mohel. I wanted as little intervention in the births of my babies as possible. Oh, and there's reason they don't do the procedure on older boys. It's called PAIN. Why would you do that to a newborn? You say you don't remember it? Well, I don't remember being yanked out by high forceps either, but I was. And I highly doubt it was a great experience for me OR my mother, frankly.

It's why I also opted for home births each time too. If someone could have convinced me that a low-risk pregnancy was not a natural thing, maybe a hospital would have been my choice. But I wanted no drugs to go to the baby, no interventions for me, no telling me what not to eat or drink.

And since I was already home, the thought of taking a newborn out for some unnecessary procedure seemed even less likely.

Read the pros *and cons* of the procedure. The cons are absolutely frightening.

__________________
Linda's Author Website
Linda's Amazon Author page

Are all you people high??

There is strong, conclusive evidence that circumcision greatly reduces the risk of HIV. This is not liberal-hysteria hogwash like vaccines cause autism or something silly like that. This is real, actual stuff.

I can't believe we are having this discussion as if there is some debate about it. It's common sense for crying out loud.

Here's the CDC, you know that "controversial" medical organization:

http://www.cdc.gov/HIV/resources/fac...rcumcision.htm

An excerpt below from the CDC studies from Scientific American magazine:

"In fact, all three trials were stopped early due to the overwhelming evidence of circumcision's protective effect."

More evidence:

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/...0News/2192531/

And this final link ought to put this silly "debate" to rest, from Scientific American:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...ision-and-aids

"The bottom line: circumcision protects heterosexual men from HIV acquisition via sexual intercourse with the greatest benefits accruing in developing nations that are hardest hit by the epidemic."


And I bet all you people still swallow hook, line, and sinker every little bit of nonsense about man-made global warming.

__________________

Apparently only in your mind.

Well, sorry, but I chose the least invasive route for my sons ... and then taught them other ways not to get HIV ... like monogamy.

I'm sorry but even your evidence wouldn't be enough for me personally to choose that option for my kids, even today. Have you read any of the evidence of what it does to the male infant? Not something a mother wants to do to her children. Didn't seem worth the trade-off.

And I don't buy the underlying assumption that HIV is something everyone is prone to and therefore needs to be protected from. There are many behavioral ways to avoid getting HIV that don't involve sending an infant into shock or paying for unnecessary procedures.

As for man-made global warming -- I don't believe it for a minute and never have. Hmmm, go figure. I don't fit into that box.

Oh, and all you have to do is read one or two stories about circumcisions gone awry to not want to go down that road unless absolutely necessary.

Did you know that if we removed the appendix of healthy people appendicitis wouldn't happen anymore? Oh wait, isn't that called an unnecessary operation?

So far, Karl, the only argument I've heard out of you is one of the weakest for circumcision. For one, it's just silly to think cutting off skin is better than just teaching people about the risks, or providing them with safe sex methods. I mean, foreskin or no foreskin I ain't going out in the rain without a parka. That's just nuts. And if I don't have a parka, I keep my arse inside. Stupid = Death

And oh, there are also studies that say your studies are medically unfounded. Go figure.

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/

http://www.cirp.org/news/healthday2007-03-05/

Here's a very recent story about a botched circumcision.
http://www.glorialemay.com/blog/?p=62

And that was in a developed country with proper medical care. It's even worse in third world countries where you so adamantly think it would help "prevent HIV."

I believe my dad has been chopped and so have I.

Funny thing though, I think my brother still has the turtle neck.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Reduces but doesn't remove the risk, let's make a note of that aye. You can still get it if you're not protected and you'd be a fool not to use a condom.

__________________
http://www.last.fm/user/diezelpower/

There is some debate about it. It's that simple. (There are now several links pointing you in the direction of some the scientific challenges to the research you are putting forward as cast-iron. But as usual you probably won't check them out, because you prefer thrashing around in your own sea of hyperbole).

Ah, more hyperbole seas. How charming.

Drop by some time

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

I am speechless. First I read something I wrote years ago where I revealed that I'm circumcised (not embarrassed about it), then I laughed at an old joke of mine about how since I lost some of my own penis, I turned gay because I need more penis to fulfill that loss... (forgot that one!)... then Austruck is openly telling the world that Yoda is uncircumcised! Is this the Howard Stern Show? What next? Breast size discussion? Make a thread!

I really don't have an opinion either way. I am curious about what it would have been like to have foreskin, but not for health reasons, for PLEASURE reasons...

Would it be more sensitive? Would it REALLY rock the boat?

But at the same time, I have had first hand experience (and more than just hands) with uncircumcised penises, and the look of them bother me. I don't know if I'd like having that stuff attached to me. I don't know if I'd like being all.... hidden. You can see my junk coming at ya for miles, but uncircumsised penises are like cavemen -- they're hiding inside something.

I still appreciate them, though, and it IS the natural way. I was circumcised right after being born so I have no memory of pain, but apparently my mother was nearby and she heard me SCREAM. I dunno, maybe if I saw a psychiatrist and had deep hypnosis done on me, I'd relive that nightmare.

I'm gonna say... that I'm for circumcision. It hasn't ruined my life. I'm proud of my penis. I dunno if I'd be prouder or not if it had a hood on it. Perhaps this is why I have an aversion to wearing hats -- I dunno, perhaps a study needs to be done on this. Do uncircumcised men like wearing hats more?

I honestly thought this thread was gonna ask people if they were circumcised or not, and I would have been interested in hearing.

I actually thought it was just a Jewish tradition, until that episode of Sex and the city (I've learned so much from that show) when they were freaked out by uncircumcised men. That was odd I thought. Did this somehow get transferred from Judaism to American popular culture? Is it widespread in any other society? I should probably wiki this....

Edit: Huh, apparently Muslims do it too...well I never...

No it was actually to do with stopping boys from masturbating. Non-religious circumcision only was taken up in English speaking countries though - in the late 1800's. You can read more at
historyofcircumcision(dot)net.

It never really caught on it Britain and less than 1% are circumcised there. In Australia and Canada they turned against it in the 1970's and 80's. Less than 10% of boys there are currently circumcised.
The USA is the only place that still does it to any great extent. Though the rate has declined from a high of about 85% to 57% today.

This is despite the AAP and other medical organisations not recommending it.

The foreskin is an important part of the penis. It contains many nerves on it's underside. When the foreskin is moved up and down it is very pleasurable. Circumcised men have lost this ability as there is no gliding effect. So they have to use artificial lubrication to masturbate or even in sex.

Without the foreskin protecting the glans, circumcised men lose further sensitivity. The glans dries out. It also brushes on underwear causing the skin to toughen.

The foreskin also has a role in sex. Women and men enjoy sex more when the man still has his foreskin.

That's an interesting first post...

No shyt. Someone can "debate" someone else about anything. However, the party that sounds like a bunch of idiots and who really have no idea what they are obviously talking about-- DESPITE ALL THE DAMN FACTUAL EVIDENCE IN THE WORLD, AND AS PROVIDED BY THE TOP HEALTH AGENCY IN THE WORLD AND THE MOST RESPECTED SCIENTIFIC PERIODICAL IN THE WORLD-- can continue to clap with one hand and try to figure out what it sounds like. That's what their "debate" is worth.

Golgot, I've checked out all of the links you have ever sent me, and I refuted every one of them. It's not my problem that you are a bitter little Subject of the Crown because you get your rhetorical ass handed to you every time you try to debate me.


NO shyt!!! Whoever said anything about removing the risk?? Why are you people so dense?? I'm not kidding....why do you people sound so challenged?? Read and think before you post.

First of all, that is the only reason for circumcision. Second of all, there is nothing weak about it. It significantly reduces the risk and spreading of the most devastating sexually transmitted disease in the history of the human race. Are you challenged also? What is it you can't comprehend?

I understand that. So what is wrong about taking an extra precaution and having the operation. Listen numbnuts, the USA and the UN have been handing out prophylactics to the Africans for decades now. HAS IT WORKED??? Here's the question again...HAS IT WORKED??

The answer, of course, is NO. The AIDS rate has been going up steadily in the African countries for years now. An operation on the other hand, is performed once, and the corrective measure will last-- foolproof-- for the remainder of the individual's sexually active life.

So, exactly what is your futile point?

Oh yes, I see you, too, have some links to "facts." Har har har. Sorry, mine are from the Centers for Disease Control and Scientific American.

Thanks for showing up at least....

Boy, you guys still live in the dark ages, don't you? Go check on your jar of leeches.

I'm against anything potentially dangerous happening in or around your dick , especially chopping/clipping done in that general area.

Which is why I'm starting the Do You Shave Your Balls ? thread.

(not actually starting it ................. balls)

I also give this thread the first R rating on the forums , you should be ashamed of yourselves talking about pee-pee's and cockas.

__________________

Get a grip, Karl. You're not winning any converts this way, I promise you.

The CDC study specifically mentions that most of the testing was done in Africa, and that a number of the results were inconsistent. The consistency came when testing high-risk groups. Most of this discussion, to my mind, has centered around the choice of ordinary parents in first-world countries, not young men in Africa.

The possibility of infection, a botched circumcision, etc, both of which have been mentioned before, and which I don't believe you've responded to or addressed in any way. Might want to read all the posts before you start yelling at people and talking about how you've decimated every argument that's been made.

Perhaps you should clarify whether or not you're saying it's worthwhile for African children, or children in the U.S. I think you'd have far more agreement in regards to the former than the latter, and most of what you're citing seems focused on the former, as well.

--im so immature :d

__________________
I have been formatted to fit this screen.

r66-The member who always asks WHY?