Circumcision...Yes, I Said Circumcision

God damn right it does!

And even then, there's still quite a bit that can get nasty and dirty.

BTW, this was one heck of a can of worms to open.

__________________
"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

It was. Nice job.
It's quite a hot-button issue for a lot of people. I sometimes wonder if circumcised males read the outrage of those who are against the practice and wish they hadn't been snipped. If I hadn't begged to have my ears pierced, I'd probably wish I'd never done it, and I'm a lot less emotional about my earlobes than most men are about their... uh... mighty swords.

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

I think it's barbaric and ludicrous that in this country it's considered SOP. The only reason to do it, IMO is a religious or medical one. The medical one should rarely occur.

My son wasn't "trimmed" to look like Dad. Dad is pretty pissed he was "trimmed" and had no option to weigh in on that. My son has had no problems with being uncut. However, in all the years I worked as a sub at pre-school I never saw another uncut boy. That's so sad to me.

Most Doctors like to do it because they get paid to. Therefore they will trot out the old, "You want him to look like, Dad, or his friends donja" line and tell you it's more hygienic. It's not. Looking like everyone else matters very little really. My son had a sleep over at a buds house. They were all taking a bath together. It wasn't a problem at all. Nor has it been in locker rooms or learning how to potty with Dad.

__________________
Bleacheddecay

Samsonite Delilah,

That quote is not mine. It is from Scientific American. If you feel that it is untrue why don't you try to disprove it with some facts of your own? It's not stating that circumcision prevents HIV, it's stating that it helps protect against HIV. If you disagree with that statement why don't you try to post some VALID and REPUTABLE information that says otherwise.

I find it hilarious now that whenever someone doesn't believe in something the other person believes in, then that person becomes a "flat-earther." That lazy expression is getting tired already.

Usually uttered by liberals against those who question the anthropogenic global warming hysteria, or any left-wing conviction unable to be proven in the scientific method. And in this case, used against someone who supports the position with the overwhelming scientific evidence on its side.

Must be the Centers for Disease Control, the World Health Organization, The New England Journal of Medicine, Scientific American, Science News, the UN, and all other global medicinal outfits are all "flat-earthers." Wow, amazing.

__________________

Karl:

You've cited evidence, but there's a difference between disputing that evidence, and disputing what it means. The study provides us with data, but it doesn't provide us with interpretation, and it's your interpretation of it that I think some (not all, perhaps) are questioning.

For example: as I mentioned earlier, the research you keep referring to was actually very inconsistent, from my reading, unless it was done on groups that were already deemed high-risk for AIDS (quote provided on request, naturally). The fact that circumcision can help decrease the chance of HIV-infection for a young man in Africa who is not practicing safe sex doesn't seem to be a terribly relevant fact to a parent in a first-world country. At the very least, it calls into the question the idea that this research should somehow end this discussion. That's quite a stretch.

You mentioned earlier that infections and botched procedures exist for all surgical actions. This is absolutely true, and it's one of the many reasons that you only engage in such procedures when they're clearly necessary.

Would you cut off part of your child's genitalia if your doctor told you it lessened the risk of, I dunno, scurvy? Or would you just tell your kid to eat an orange now and then?

The risk-reward ratio you're presenting is compelling for some people in some situations elsewhere in the world, but it simply isn't applicable for a parent in America today. At least not to the degree you seem to be suggesting.

Yoda,

I understand your curiosity about the validity of the research, since the research was carried out it Africa.

However, I'm extremely confused as to why you would think that because the control group were extremely high risk individuals, that the research wouldn't be pertinent to lower risk groups in developed countries. How is this logical?

The difference between a high risk control group and a low risk one is a mathematical construct, not a flexible uncertainty made malleable by unexpected catalysts and differences in theory. We're just talking about larger numbers.

I'm fore it.
The only cheese I want should be on a pizza.

__________________
"If you can't be funny be interesting."
Harold Ross

Fast list of pros and cons for both sides.

http://www.naturalfamilyonline.com/a...rcumcision.htm

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

Suspect's Reviews

Karl seems pretty worked up over this circumcision "issue". Is this really a big deal? What am I missing?

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

No, the term is used when someone pushes a claim with unfounded evidence. Which is what you're clearly doing.

Another thing to point out about that study, they were all provided with safe sex methods and condoms. Perhaps the cut guys just worn condoms/practiced safer sex more often than the uncut? We don't know. Which makes the evidence shaky, at best.

It's not a clear cut case as you would like to have it, and that is why you were called a "flat-earther."

What about a category for I'm a male and I really don't care one way or another. It's not exactly a subject I've really studied, but everything I ever read or heard about the practice indicates it is not "purely cosmetic." Apparently the extra foreskin is not only a breeding ground for disease but also a means of spreading it. As for as it making the member less sensitive, that's not a bad thing since guns with "hair triggers" sometimes shoot too soon.

Circumcision has always be practiced in my family, but if others don't want to do it, that's fine. I've never done a public urinal survey to see which condition is most prevalent.

You make it sound like a haircut.

What about tacos? Hamburgers?

Heh... "clear cut".

I agree. I didn't like that term. I think someone else used it in this thread and it got stuck in my head.

This is a good example of a "straw man", Karl Childers. I said nothing of the sort. You pretend I did and then point out the fallacy of what you made up.

Your points in this thread, if they can even be called that, have been couched in one insult after another, in repeated ad hominem slurs against those with a different opinion than the one you're claiming, and in some of the most rabidly hilarious cart-before-the-horse reasoning I've witnessed. And you're going to now attempt to demand serious refutation of studies that have already been discredited upthread?

Hardly seems worth my time.

A quick google shows quite a few articles that make the point that if a person has a foreskin, all other things being equal, he has a higher risk of contracting HIV than if he doesn't. You're conflating that with protecting the guy, and that's also already been pointed out to you. Since you pretend to place a high premium on web-nested 411, here is a present: Circumstitions.


This is Darkhorsian posting - attack, insult, misconstrue and then rather than acknowledge any counter-points, just widen the circle. Rather than encourage it further, I'm going to bow out, but before I do, I want to throw a kudos to John McLane for an interesting topic and for high-class responses to the silliness.

Wow, this is quite a thread.

My personal stance on the issue is that parents shouldn't make the decision for their children. I wasn't given a choice, and given that choice, would have said no. I understand the necessity of decisions regarding, say, vaccinations for an infant. However, without substantial proof either for or against the procedure, it just seems logical to let people choose for themselves.

Karl Childers, while you seem to have intelligent and respectable attributes, a lot of your arguments get lost behind rude and vulgar banter that tends to make people stop listening to what you have to say. As one friendly mofo to another, I suggest that you focus on the discussion, and not the argument. Cheers, .

__________________

You are correct.
Awe...
Let's say with cheese anything goes.

Do you mind if I ask why?