I spent a lot of time trying to figure out a topic for a argumentative paper I have assigned for my English 101 class. I was thinking of doing something relating to video games and violence, but I remembered I did something similar for my Social Science 102 class last semester. I was also thinking to something relating to poverty, but I couldn't find something specific I was really interested in.
So I was browsing Digg, and I found this Article. I have to say that it really got me curious.
Question
1.Do you guys think that Circumcision among males is ethical or unethical? 2.What about it's implications? 3.Do you think that a individual has the right to make that decision for a child, or should the procedure be done when the child is older, and willing? 4. Do tangible health benefits override other factors to you personally?
There has been 2 teamliquid discussions before, but one of them was mainly about female circumcision in Africa, and the other one is rather old (about 3 years). So I kind of want a fresh debate. I'm curious to see what people think, and what arguments you guys will use for Pro and cons. Also, it would definitely help my paper.
So what do all of you guys think? Eatme recommended this documentary. This is part 1, part 3 is also up, but I don't think part 2 is =/
I don't like it. I think all the arguments for circumcision are poor and it's just a useless ritual. Some people will throw statistics at you like 'people with foreskin are more likely to get an infection' but they're too stupid to realise that's only because doctors are pulling it back forcibly, not because it's dirty. If one just stretches their foreskin normally and healthily, they don't have this problem. I'd be more worried about trusting a doctor with a knife around those parts unnecessarily, because the consequences of a slip are much more devastating than a little infection.
If you wanna talk about FGM, that's obviously unethical and results in immense pain for the woman. They only do it so that sex won't be enjoyable and she'll be monogamous.
pros : you apparently last longer (shouldn't be a problem to start with) more hygienic ( wtf? you should be washing anyway) cons: a slice of your manliness is taken it hurts for ages? i guess it might look worse?
Just to throw out the cleanliness factor - this was true when, you know, people were terrible with hygiene. In 2009, with showers and soap, it is really really not an issue - I promise.
second, as far as girls preference, it is totally cultural. different girls like different things and most get over that preference the second they really want to fuck a guy.
Its a ritual like any other, it once upon a time made sense to do, but is now entirely and utterly useless. Like most rituals that serve no purpose whatsoever i am against it.
If it was a completely painless procedure, then i would not care at all about this, but i dont see myself allowing someone to just cut away at my son for no apparent reason. (that is if i ever have one ofc) and i strongly discourage anyone to enforce this on their kids. Just wait a couple of years and see if he himself wants it. I doubt many people would be circumsized if they were old enough to make the decision for themselves.
But anyway, its not that big of a deal really, you should find something more compelling to write an article about.
I think the ethics part of this lies in that parents will make this decision. Are parents making the right choice when sending their babies to the chopping block? Sure, the babies don't remember it, but I'm certain at the time they feel pain unknown to most adults. Statistics do show that circumcised men are less likely to get infections and even that it reduces the risk of getting HIV. So it can't be all bad. Personally I like my "hat". Without it, I'm sure it would be pretty desensitised when it matters the most. All the cleaning and scrubbing in the world is worth that.
On April 22 2009 02:18 Zurles wrote: pros : you apparently last longer (shouldn't be a problem to start with)
I will not even comment on the stupidity and complete irrelivance of this comment, instead think about this: if removing your foreskin would improve your stamina, then that would mean that the stimuli you receive would be flattened and less intense (the intenser the stimuli, the closer you are to come). So removing your foreskin would actually lessen your sexual experience and sensations. Why on earth would you want to accomplish that????
On April 22 2009 03:01 choboPEon wrote: Just to throw out the cleanliness factor - this was true when, you know, people were terrible with hygiene. In 2009, with showers and soap, it is really really not an issue - I promise.
Unless it's going to prevent complications (not too uncommon tbh) I don't really see the point.
It should really just be viewed as a medical procedure.
On the other hand I guess it would prevent any embarrassing foreskin problems that could arise later in life that couldn't be predicted earlier (inability to retract it etc.)
come to think of it i don't care. And I don't really think it's unethical, just stupid.
Just to throw out the cleanliness factor - this was true
I wonder if I had no lips, would my mouth be cleaner? Or maybe if I didn't have eyelids, I wouldn't get dirt stuck in them? <3 conventional wisdom. Also, you can't get pregnant the first time you have sex. Teenagers said so!
i had it done when i was 17 (about 1 1/2 years ago), wish i had it done at birth. if you search tl.net you should see my journey. lemme know if you have any question
Just to throw out the cleanliness factor - this was true
I wonder if I had no lips, would my mouth be cleaner? Or maybe if I didn't have eyelids, I wouldn't get dirt stuck in them? <3 conventional wisdom. Also, you can't get pregnant the first time you have sex. Teenagers said so!
well, you're not urinating with your mouth or eyes >__>
Try to watch the Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episode on the topic. Really scary stuff that I cant imagine you want to do to a child or yourself. Apparently circumcision was popularised to fight masturbation.
On April 22 2009 03:08 Gnojfatelob wrote: Its a ritual like any other, it once upon a time made sense to do, but is now entirely and utterly useless. Like most rituals that serve no purpose whatsoever i am against it.
If it was a completely painless procedure, then i would not care at all about this, but i dont see myself allowing someone to just cut away at my son for no apparent reason. (that is if i ever have one ofc) and i strongly discourage anyone to enforce this on their kids. Just wait a couple of years and see if he himself wants it. I doubt many people would be circumsized if they were old enough to make the decision for themselves.
But anyway, its not that big of a deal really, you should find something more compelling to write an article about.
"Timmy you turned 4 today, and mommy and I have a very important question. Would you like us to remove the flappy end of your wee wee?"
On April 22 2009 04:06 FuDDx wrote: All I know is, most girls I've ever been with would rather bite the bullet than the elephant trunk, know what I mean.
dunno how many erect uncut penises you've seen, but they don't look like you think they do
On April 22 2009 02:16 Chef wrote: I think all the arguments for circumcision are poor and it's just a useless ritual. Some people will throw statistics at you like 'people with foreskin are more likely to get an infection' but they're too stupid to realise that's only because doctors are pulling it back forcibly, not because it's dirty. If one just stretches their foreskin normally and healthily, they don't have this problem. I'd be more worried about trusting a doctor with a knife around those parts unnecessarily, because the consequences of a slip are much more devastating than a little infection.
This post is wrong on so many counts.
1) People with foreskin are more likely to get infections because "doctors are pulling it back forcibly"? I am not sure what you are talking about here. The average man does not have a doctor tugging at his foreskin on a regular basis.
2) "If one just stretches their foreskin normally and healthily, they don't have this problem" and also to address choboPEon's comment about modern levels of hygiene rendering circumcision for health reasons obsolete: this point is irrelevant. Of course if everyone takes immaculate care of their privates (or if they just, say, abstain from sex) they will not have to worry about infections. The problem is that people just don't do this - especially not in developing countries, where STDs are most rampant. The point of a circumcision is not to be a cure-all for STDs, but to decrease the probability of contraction and transmission.
3) "I'd be more worried about trusting a doctor with a knife around those parts unnecessarily": this point is only valid in countries where healthcare is poor enough that there is a significant risk of complications with any surgery. The rate of "failure" for circumcisions is infinitesimally small.
4) "more devastating than a little infection": I can only take this statement to mean that you are unaware of how serious STDs are. HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis - these are deadly diseases which are ravaging entire countries of people. When you compare risk*damage cost of a failed circumcision with risk*damage cost of contracting an STD, the circumcision starts to look quite attractive.
--
There is conflicting data about whether circumcision reduces transmission rates for some STDs, but the majority of evidence indicates that circumcision is effective at combating many STDs (recent randomized study shows decrease in HIV transmission of ~55%).
Even given this information, it's important to note that circumcision may not be the most appropriate or cost-effective way to combat STDs, especially in countries where competent doctors and sterile environments are hard to come by. However, it's looking increasingly untenable to argue that circumcision has no practical health benefits.
Don't read this post as a condemnation of un-circumcised men/penises. Many guys are perfectly capable of hygiene and sexual behaviors which will protect them from STDs regardless of whether their penis is circumcised. But keep in mind, Chef, that the average person is probably much less hygienic and sexually responsible as you, and thus could probably benefit from losing that foreskin.
I definetely think it should be a personal choice, I don't agree with mass circumsisions like in America. The percentage for America is around 90% I think, but in Europe it is hardly practised. The girls that you've met most likely have no reference or are quoting some tv show. It is quite obvious that nature did not intend for the foreskin and the penis to be seperated at birth. In my experience uncurcimsed males have access to soap and water.
Pros: 1. decreased risk of stds (if you participate in hasty endeavours) 2. possibilty of bathing less
1) People with foreskin are more likely to get infections because "doctors are pulling it back forcibly"? I am not sure what you are talking about here. The average man does not have a doctor tugging at his foreskin on a regular basis.
When a child's foreskin isn't going back as quickly as a physician would deem normal, they used to force it back.
Eight weeks after fertilization, the foreskin begins to grow over the head of the penis, covering it completely by 16 weeks. At this stage, the foreskin and glans share an epithelium (mucous layer) that fuses the two together. It remains this way until the foreskin separates from the glans.[5]
At birth, the foreskin is usually still fused with the glans.[5] As childhood progresses the foreskin and the glans gradually separate, a process that may not be complete until late puberty.[6] Thorvaldsen and Meyhoff reported that average age of first foreskin retraction in Denmark is 10.4 years.[7] Wright argues that forcible retraction of the foreskin should be avoided and that the child himself should be the first one to retract his own foreskin.[8] Premature retraction may be painful, and may result in infection.
Yeah, you pretty much don't know what you're talking about, so I'm not going to read the rest of your post.
1) People with foreskin are more likely to get infections because "doctors are pulling it back forcibly"? I am not sure what you are talking about here. The average man does not have a doctor tugging at his foreskin on a regular basis.
When a child's foreskin isn't going back as quickly as a physician would deem normal, they used to force it back.
Eight weeks after fertilization, the foreskin begins to grow over the head of the penis, covering it completely by 16 weeks. At this stage, the foreskin and glans share an epithelium (mucous layer) that fuses the two together. It remains this way until the foreskin separates from the glans.[5]
At birth, the foreskin is usually still fused with the glans.[5] As childhood progresses the foreskin and the glans gradually separate, a process that may not be complete until late puberty.[6] Thorvaldsen and Meyhoff reported that average age of first foreskin retraction in Denmark is 10.4 years.[7] Wright argues that forcible retraction of the foreskin should be avoided and that the child himself should be the first one to retract his own foreskin.[8] Premature retraction may be painful, and may result in infection.
Yeah, you pretty much don't know what you're talking about, so I'm not going to read the rest of your post.
haha amazing, I'm so glad I honored your post with a thought-out and lengthy reply.
Thanks (really) for clearing up that point, though. Do you have any evidence that forcibly pulling back the foreskin is what causes problems with uncircumcised penises+disease transmission? Also, in the quote above I am pretty sure "result in infection" is referring to an infection that occurs at the time of the premature retraction, not transmission or contraction of STDs sometime down the line.
Who gives a shit about unethical or ethical i really dont give a shit about the condition the foreskin of my penis is when i'm about to fuck a girl i'm not thinking "does my dick look like a turtle?"
I really doubt people really argue if circumsicion is unethical or not
I had a circumcision when I was 6 or something, since then I've never given it any thought. I've always thought it was hilarious how some people are completely against or for this procedure. If you seriously want to discuss penis foreskin you are a homo.
On April 22 2009 05:35 Frits wrote: I had a circumcision when I was 6 or something, since then I've never given it any thought. I've always thought it was hilarious how some people are completely against or for this procedure. If you seriously want to discuss penis foreskin you are a homo.
LOL 100% agree~ who gives a shit about the condition about your penis i'm pretty sure 99%+ of the circumsiced men in the world dont GIVE A SHIT
On April 22 2009 03:08 Gnojfatelob wrote: Its a ritual like any other, it once upon a time made sense to do, but is now entirely and utterly useless. Like most rituals that serve no purpose whatsoever i am against it.
If it was a completely painless procedure, then i would not care at all about this, but i dont see myself allowing someone to just cut away at my son for no apparent reason. (that is if i ever have one ofc) and i strongly discourage anyone to enforce this on their kids. Just wait a couple of years and see if he himself wants it. I doubt many people would be circumsized if they were old enough to make the decision for themselves.
But anyway, its not that big of a deal really, you should find something more compelling to write an article about.
"Timmy you turned 4 today, and mommy and I have a very important question. Would you like us to remove the flappy end of your wee wee?"
"Whats a flappy momma? I WANT ICECREAM!"
I would have told you to go fuck yourself if I was asked that at age 4 ; [ Maybe not in so many words, but the gist of it would have been "no way".
On April 22 2009 05:52 Chef wrote: You can't miss what you never knew you had, but does that give someone a right to take it away when you're born? :o
What about your umbilical cord? Save that too imo.
On a serious note though, could you please answer/acknowledge my question here:
On April 22 2009 04:49 JWD wrote: Do you have any evidence that forcibly pulling back the foreskin is what causes problems with uncircumcised penises+disease transmission?
Remind me to never date an americal girl if they're so concerned about circumcision as some people in this thread suggests. ;O I seriously can't understand why you voluntarily would cut something of that protects the glans and offers natural lubrication, especially when removing it makes you less sensitive during sex. :S Can't say I buy the 'health' argument either, seeing as you're much more likely to suffer small wounds and whatnot with less protection...
Not wearing a condom is what will give you problems with disease transmission. I don't really see it as being much safer to not have foreskin if your sexual partner has a contagious disease. I mean, you're asking me for evidence that they'd be the same, I'm asking you for reason to believe they'd be different. I don't really feel like the burden of proof is on me to debunk a claim that is clearly ridiculous.
It doesn't really matter how 'well thought out' your posts are, if you don't do your own research.
On April 22 2009 03:01 choboPEon wrote: Just to throw out the cleanliness factor - this was true when, you know, people were terrible with hygiene. In 2009, with showers and soap, it is really really not an issue - I promise.
On April 22 2009 06:16 Chef wrote: Not wearing a condom is what will give you problems with disease transmission. I don't really see it as being much safer to not have foreskin if your sexual partner has a contagious disease. I mean, you're asking me for evidence that they'd be the same, I'm asking you for reason to believe they'd be different. I don't really feel like the burden of proof is on me to debunk a claim that is clearly ridiculous.
It doesn't really matter how 'well thought out' your posts are, if you don't do your own research.
1) I did do research, and if you'd read the rest of my post you would have come upon it. Here's a summary:
There is conflicting data about whether circumcision reduces transmission rates for some STDs, but the majority of evidence indicates that circumcision is effective at combating many STDs (recent randomized study shows decrease in HIV transmission of ~55%).
If you want more evidence, here is a great document from the CDC which explains pretty conclusively that circumcision has positive health benefits including limiting STD transmission:
Male circumcision has been associated with a lower risk for HIV infection in international observational studies and in three randomized controlled clinical trials. It is possible, but not yet adequately assessed, that male circumcision could reduce male-to-female transmission of HIV, although probably to a lesser extent than female-to-male transmission. Male circumcision has also been associated with a number of other health benefits. Although there are risks to male circumcision, serious complications are rare. Accordingly, male circumcision, together with other prevention interventions, could play an important role in HIV prevention in settings similar to those of the clinical trials [41, 42].
2) So basically what you are saying is that not only do you have no evidence to back your claim, but you shouldn't have to have any? That's a pretty weak position.
3) The reason I smelled "bogus" on your original post is that I just don't see how a doctor prematurely retracting the foreskin could have a lifelong impact on likelihood of STD transmission. What's the mechanism at play there? To argue that the effect of uncircumcision on STD transmission is due to premature foreskin retraction and not (as I hold) due to the presence of the foreskin itself, you must be proposing that, 10, 20, 30 years after you've had your foreskin pulled back too early, you are somehow more prone to giving or getting STDs. I just don't see how this could work. Clearly you must, so can you explain?
The mechanism which would explain why circumcision leads to a decrease in STD transmission, however, is pretty simple: no foreskin means fewer warm, damp places for microorganisms or infected cells to incubate (infections can develop independently of sex and then be transmitted during sex) and stay alive/propagate during intercourse. This is put in much more scientific terms in the CDC document linked above.
4) Of course not wearing a condom will help you avoid STDs - that's totally irrelevant to circumcision's relationship with STD transmission:
1: "Hey, on average circumcision reduces odds of contracting and transmitting STDs!" 2: "You're probably going to get STDs if you don't wear a condom."
Statement 2 has nothing to do with the veracity of statement 1.
On April 22 2009 03:08 Gnojfatelob wrote: Its a ritual like any other, it once upon a time made sense to do, but is now entirely and utterly useless. Like most rituals that serve no purpose whatsoever i am against it.
If it was a completely painless procedure, then i would not care at all about this, but i dont see myself allowing someone to just cut away at my son for no apparent reason. (that is if i ever have one ofc) and i strongly discourage anyone to enforce this on their kids. Just wait a couple of years and see if he himself wants it. I doubt many people would be circumsized if they were old enough to make the decision for themselves.
But anyway, its not that big of a deal really, you should find something more compelling to write an article about.
"Timmy you turned 4 today, and mommy and I have a very important question. Would you like us to remove the flappy end of your wee wee?"
Male circumcision has been associated [cause and effect issue] with a lower risk for HIV infection in international observational studies [ie: surveys ] and in three randomized controlled clinical trials [just three?]. It is possible [re: possible], but not yet adequately assessed [exactly], that male circumcision could [more qualifiers] reduce male-to-female transmission of HIV [I don't have HIV], although probably to a lesser extent than female-to-male transmission [excellent]. Male circumcision has also been associated [cause and effect issue] with a number of other health benefits [such as?]. Although there are risks to male circumcision, serious complications are rare [but severe]. Accordingly, male circumcision, together with other prevention interventions [ie: condoms, dental dams, general cleanliness, and other more important factors], could [again] play an important role [the previously mentioned factors, not circumcision alone] in HIV prevention in settings similar to those of the clinical trials [which were?] [41, 42].
Reading a sketchy pamphlet isn't really research TBH.
On April 22 2009 06:39 Chef wrote: Male circumcision has been associated [cause and effect issue] with a lower risk for HIV infection in international observational studies [ie: surveys ] and in three randomized controlled clinical trials [just three?]. It is possible [re: possible], but not yet adequately assessed [exactly], that male circumcision could [more qualifiers] reduce male-to-female transmission of HIV [I don't have HIV], although probably to a lesser extent than female-to-male transmission [excellent]. Male circumcision has also been associated [cause and effect issue] with a number of other health benefits [such as?]. Although there are risks to male circumcision, serious complications are rare [but severe]. Accordingly, male circumcision, together with other prevention interventions [ie: condoms, dental dams, general cleanliness, and other more important factors], could [again] play an important role [the previously mentioned factors, not circumcision alone] in HIV prevention in settings similar to those of the clinical trials [which were?] [41, 42].
Reading a sketchy pamphlet isn't really research TBH.
If you read the document, you'd find answers to many of your questions. And the fact that you're calling it a "sketchy pamphlet" is just laughable, because the CDC is a widely-respected government organization and one of the world's leading sources for health-related information. Since it seems like you've never heard of it, you can read about it here:
Are you going to address any of the other contents of my post above? I'd particularly like to see you address point 3), just because I'm really curious how you think that premature foreskin retraction can produce permanent effects on STD transmission.
Look, I'm trying my best to remain civil here but this is getting ridiculous. To be honest I'm shocked that you're even still posting here, considering you clearly have no logic or data to back up your original claim.
On April 22 2009 05:52 Chef wrote: You can't miss what you never knew you had, but does that give someone a right to take it away when you're born? :o
honestly who gives a shit
If people are discussing it they clearly care about it. Your post is useless trash, it adds nothing to the discussion other than single you out to moderators as an idiot. If people didn't care they wouldn't post and this thread wouldn't get bumped. That's how forums work.
On April 22 2009 06:16 Chef wrote: Not wearing a condom is what will give you problems with disease transmission. I don't really see it as being much safer to not have foreskin if your sexual partner has a contagious disease. I mean, you're asking me for evidence that they'd be the same, I'm asking you for reason to believe they'd be different. I don't really feel like the burden of proof is on me to debunk a claim that is clearly ridiculous.
It doesn't really matter how 'well thought out' your posts are, if you don't do your own research.
Dude he gave you plenty of research and sources that pretty clearly refuted everything you said. What more do you want?
On April 22 2009 03:13 micronesia wrote: It's a requirement at many Jewish sororities.
On April 22 2009 03:01 choboPEon wrote: Just to throw out the cleanliness factor - this was true when, you know, people were terrible with hygiene. In 2009, with showers and soap, it is really really not an issue - I promise.
Soroities?....
Somebody asked the same exact thing in this thread, and I responded. Read the thread...
Edit: Hot_Bid that other guy went about it the wrong way, but making the point that it's not something you should care about is reasonable imo.
On April 22 2009 03:13 micronesia wrote: It's a requirement at many Jewish sororities.
On April 22 2009 03:01 choboPEon wrote: Just to throw out the cleanliness factor - this was true when, you know, people were terrible with hygiene. In 2009, with showers and soap, it is really really not an issue - I promise.
Soroities?....
Somebody asked the same exact thing in this thread, and I responded. Read the thread...
Edit: Hot_Bid that other guy went about it the wrong way, but making the point that it's not something you should care about is reasonable imo.
That's entirely the point I'm making. You can't go into a thread and say "honestly who gives a shit". How is that an acceptable post? He's not making a rational argument that the effects of circumcision and non circumcision is negligible. That would be reasonable.
Just instead of relying CDC as the only source of information
Studies from Africa
A number of studies from Africa point to the fact that the regions of Africa most troubled with HIV infection tend to overlap with the regions where male circumcision is rare. However, this does not imply a causal link: If the same argument were applied to the industrialized world, one would note that the United States has a high circumcision rate, and also has the highest prevalence of HIV.28,31,32 38 Circumcision alone cannot explain these differences. Furthermore, the applicability of data from Africa vis-à-vis the conditions in developed countries—where hygiene standards, prevalence of different STDs, and strains of HIV differ greatly—is questionable. Rather, these variances can be explained by looking at cultural differences and sexual practices.
A number of studies from Africa point to the fact that the regions of Africa most troubled with HIV infection tend to overlap with the regions where male circumcision is rare. However, this does not imply a causal link: If the same argument were applied to the industrialized world, one would note that the United States has a high circumcision rate, and also has the highest prevalence of HIV.28,31,32 38 Circumcision alone cannot explain these differences. Furthermore, the applicability of data from Africa vis-à-vis the conditions in developed countries—where hygiene standards, prevalence of different STDs, and strains of HIV differ greatly—is questionable. Rather, these variances can be explained by looking at cultural differences and sexual practices.
Um yeah, that site definitely looks comparable to the CDC in integrity (sarcasm)
...did you bother to check out the homepage, or just blindly click on it because it was the first result in Google? Maybe you should take a look:
Yeah...you know a site is host to a plethora of accurate scientific information when it has 6 colorful badges!
Not to mention it hasn't been updated since 2007, and the point you quoted isn't relevant to any of the sources I used or arguments I've made. Also I'd like to note that the CDC is not the only source I used, just merely a particularly respected/comprehensive one.
PS cirp.org is apparently run by "Tilted Media Group" and about 2 seconds of reading their homepage will alert you to the fact that they are clearly biased on this issue.
Edit: oh man this is almost too good, one of the links on their main page is to the homepage of MUSIC (404s now, what a great and reliable website cirp.org is): Musicians United to Stop Involuntary Circumcision. Amazing
Well I admit that it was because it was the first result in google I don't really feel the need to research the topic in depth and I guess I should trust the american government sponsored research ... however thought that the point about rate of HIV in America is quite high to be a valid point. Anyway the point is that those african studies are really quite extreme and cultural differences vary.
circumcision adds the risk of babies in hospitals getting their penis cut off on accident. Doctors then pump them full of hormones and turn their penis into a vagina.
The sad reality for some transsexuals
On the actual issue of male circumcision, there really isn't a difference except its supposedly cleaner but doesn't feel as good
I think since this is a paper about ethics, it should be more about "do other people have the right to make decisions concerning your body for you?" and less about the potential pros and cons of circumcision.
But only if the pros and cons are close, as in western culture, where issues like HIV are much less apparent. In africa, it seems, the benefits to health outweigh the cons, and it should be treated similarly to a vaccination. And a mediocre one at that.
On April 22 2009 08:31 seppolevne wrote: I think since this is a paper about ethics, it should be more about "do other people have the right to make decisions concerning your body for you?" and less about the potential pros and cons of circumcision.
But only if the pros and cons are close, as in western culture, where issues like HIV are much less apparent. In africa, it seems, the benefits to health outweigh the cons, and it should be treated similarly to a vaccination. And a mediocre one at that.
Generally speaking, parents have the right to make medically-related decisions for a child who is not capable of consenting (e.g. infants), such as whether or not they receive vaccinations, or surgery for various conditions. I fail to see how circumcision should be any different. It should require parental consent, but should be a choice either way.
On April 22 2009 08:31 seppolevne wrote: I think since this is a paper about ethics, it should be more about "do other people have the right to make decisions concerning your body for you?" and less about the potential pros and cons of circumcision.
But only if the pros and cons are close, as in western culture, where issues like HIV are much less apparent. In africa, it seems, the benefits to health outweigh the cons, and it should be treated similarly to a vaccination. And a mediocre one at that.
Generally speaking, parents have the right to make medically-related decisions for a child who is not capable of consenting (e.g. infants), such as whether or not they receive vaccinations, or surgery for various conditions. I fail to see how circumcision should be any different. It should require parental consent, but should be a choice either way.
I think it's very debatable when talking about elective surgery and the like.
I am thinking about it ethically rather than legally.
On April 22 2009 09:08 micronesia wrote: I think it's very debatable when talking about elective surgery and the like.
I am thinking about it ethically rather than legally.
Even from an ethical standpoint, I think allowing parents to handle such decisions on a case-by-case basis is much more acceptable than having an arbitrary standard of "yes we should perform the operation in all cases" or "no we shouldn't perform the operation in all cases". Frankly, because of the varying cultural opinions of circumcision, how acceptable circumcision is will be different to different people, and it seems rather insensitive to make a single verdict about such a wide array of situations.
Circumcision arguments are incredibly pointless. Everyone will just argue for how their own penises are. It isn't like someone will go and say "You're right, my penis is the inferior shape."
Ellis, can't you make that point about any argument?
On April 22 2009 09:19 Ellis wrote: CircumcisionAll arguments are incredibly pointless. Everyone will just argue for how their own penises arehe is. It isn't like someone will go and say "You're right , my penis is the inferior shape."
But regardless, it sparks debates and discussion.
A discussion board probably isn't the best place to point out that discussion is pointless.
On April 22 2009 05:52 Chef wrote: You can't miss what you never knew you had, but does that give someone a right to take it away when you're born? :o
honestly who gives a shit
If people are discussing it they clearly care about it. Your post is useless trash, it adds nothing to the discussion other than single you out to moderators as an idiot. If people didn't care they wouldn't post and this thread wouldn't get bumped. That's how forums work.
On April 22 2009 06:16 Chef wrote: Not wearing a condom is what will give you problems with disease transmission. I don't really see it as being much safer to not have foreskin if your sexual partner has a contagious disease. I mean, you're asking me for evidence that they'd be the same, I'm asking you for reason to believe they'd be different. I don't really feel like the burden of proof is on me to debunk a claim that is clearly ridiculous.
It doesn't really matter how 'well thought out' your posts are, if you don't do your own research.
Dude he gave you plenty of research and sources that pretty clearly refuted everything you said. What more do you want?
His source admits several times that it's inconclusive and still not entirely sure. Even though it has a spin that sounds like it's supporting the idea that it's more healthy, if you read what it's actually saying it's saying "There are correlations, but they're not very convincing.' "Could" "maybe" "possibly" "might." Survey information can INDICATE that there's a problem, but it doesn't present biological fact.
I should make it clear that this passage in particular is what I find sketchy, because it's nonobjective. It's telling the truth, but it's doing more than just presenting the facts, which is unprofessional of whoever wrote that particular bit.
On April 22 2009 05:52 Chef wrote: You can't miss what you never knew you had, but does that give someone a right to take it away when you're born? :o
honestly who gives a shit
If people are discussing it they clearly care about it. Your post is useless trash, it adds nothing to the discussion other than single you out to moderators as an idiot. If people didn't care they wouldn't post and this thread wouldn't get bumped. That's how forums work.
On April 22 2009 06:16 Chef wrote: Not wearing a condom is what will give you problems with disease transmission. I don't really see it as being much safer to not have foreskin if your sexual partner has a contagious disease. I mean, you're asking me for evidence that they'd be the same, I'm asking you for reason to believe they'd be different. I don't really feel like the burden of proof is on me to debunk a claim that is clearly ridiculous.
It doesn't really matter how 'well thought out' your posts are, if you don't do your own research.
Dude he gave you plenty of research and sources that pretty clearly refuted everything you said. What more do you want?
His source admits several times that it's inconclusive and still not entirely sure. Even though it has a spin that sounds like it's supporting the idea that it's more healthy, if you read what it's actually saying it's saying "There are correlations, but they're not very convincing.' "Could" "maybe" "possibly" "might." Survey information can INDICATE that there's a problem, but it doesn't present biological fact.
Oh yeah? Well YOUR source...oh shit, you don't have a single one, you're apparently just making stuff up.
I can't get over this: you're busy harping on how the CDC uses very cautious language in the paragraph I quoted, seemingly posting in an alternative universe where it's acceptable to carry on faulting the opposition without addressing any of its difficult questions or citing a single source which supports or explains your position.
OK, let's drop the CDC article for a moment and return to where this all started, with your main original claim:
On April 22 2009 02:16 Chef wrote: Some people will throw statistics at you like 'people with foreskin are more likely to get an infection' but they're too stupid to realise that's only because doctors are pulling it back forcibly, not because it's dirty. If one just stretches their foreskin normally and healthily, they don't have this problem.
I'm going to spell this out for you as clearly as possible, and if you still refuse to answer I'm going to just abandon this argument as a lost cause. Here are the two (main) questions I have:
1. How exactly does "doctors pulling [foreskin] back forcibly" explain statistics which show that people with foreskin are more likely to get an infection (what is the medical phenomenon which causes premature foreskin retraction to make men more susceptible to infections over their lifetimes)?
2. Can you provide any evidence from any source which shows this medical phenomenon exists?
(Note I asked these questions several pages back, and have already repeated them.)
I should make it clear that this passage in particular is what I find sketchy, because it's nonobjective. It's telling the truth, but it's doing more than just presenting the facts, which is unprofessional of whoever wrote that particular bit.
First, this isn't a "clarification" of your original position (that the entire "pamphlet" is "sketchy") but rather a revision. And there are several bizarre elements to this statement. First, you acknowledge that it's telling the truth? Great! Then you have to concede there are positive health benefits to circumcision (counter to your original statement that there are no good arguments for circumcision).
Second, have you perhaps considered that the facts are simply that circumcision does have positive health benefits? Just because a document takes a position does not mean it's nonobjective - I think you are unsure on the definition of "nonobjective".
Third, how is writing a conclusion (even if it is nonobjective opinion) to a long document which is grounded in experiment results and science unprofessional?
Anyone who's curious why I'm even bothering with this: I'm stuck in bed sick, so this is my best form of entertainment at the moment .
As someone uncircumcised, I think the extra pleasure (that you simply can't feel anywhere else) is eternally worth it. Perhaps slightly less hygienic, but if you're not a moron there's no difference.
I don't understand why people don't just get the best of both worlds. Just make a series of parallel cuts so that all the foreskin is still there, yet it doesn't allow bacteria growth.
On April 22 2009 14:32 fight_or_flight wrote: I don't understand why people don't just get the best of both worlds. Just make a series of parallel cuts so that all the foreskin is still there, yet it doesn't allow bacteria growth.
Hmmm, unless it's a spiral, it's not going to stay on
On April 22 2009 14:32 fight_or_flight wrote: I don't understand why people don't just get the best of both worlds. Just make a series of parallel cuts so that all the foreskin is still there, yet it doesn't allow bacteria growth.
Hmmm, unless it's a spiral, it's not going to stay on
On April 22 2009 14:32 fight_or_flight wrote: I don't understand why people don't just get the best of both worlds. Just make a series of parallel cuts so that all the foreskin is still there, yet it doesn't allow bacteria growth.
Hmmm, unless it's a spiral, it's not going to stay on
not rings, but a mop
I'm uncircumcised, but this made me "EEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWW"
On April 22 2009 03:23 decafchicken wrote: i had it done when i was 17 (about 1 1/2 years ago), wish i had it done at birth. if you search tl.net you should see my journey. lemme know if you have any question
That would be great man. I might PM you some questions. Thanks for the help.
On April 22 2009 05:52 Chef wrote: You can't miss what you never knew you had, but does that give someone a right to take it away when you're born? :o
honestly who gives a shit
Like Hotbid pointed out. This blog was about a discussion of circumcision. If you have nothing to add to the discussion. Simply Don't Post!. I never wanted this to turn into a huge flame war. I simply want to see different views on the procedure. Also, those people who keep saying it's irrelevant we are talking about dicks. We're not, we are talking about the procedure and it's implications/the ethics of it.
I got circumcised at 16... lemme tell you it was a bitch. They put little stitches on my peepee, about 8 of them. At least 5 got caught on my (then) nice boxers, at which point every little movement of my pants would tug on it in the WORST way possible. Yeah... imagine making your own penis sleeve out of (shitty school) toilet paper and tape just so it didn't happen. I prefer being like this than not though. It definitely looks nicer than having a flappy lil shit hanging off the end. Best part about it, though, is that I don't have to peel the foreskin back and take all the dirt and shit out from the head of my pee pee anymore.
That aside, female circumcision is just lol, stupid at best. I can't do anything about it, but I know it's just straight fucked up. Male circumcision... I really don't see how it's an issue. My mom walked into my room one day and was like "hey, you're getting circumcised this weekend." First thing I thought of was South Park: "we're just going to cut off a bit of his wee wee to make it look bigger." Just groaned in agreement and went back to what i was doing.
Don't have a valid ethical standpoint or scientific evidence, but as someone who's seen both sides I figured I could contribute. Figured wrong but I spent a good 2 minutes typing this >.>
On April 22 2009 03:23 decafchicken wrote: i had it done when i was 17 (about 1 1/2 years ago), wish i had it done at birth. if you search tl.net you should see my journey. lemme know if you have any question
Meh, I had it done as a baby so I can't really say if it hurt or not. Really don't see if it was necessary or not with condoms so common now. As long as people aren't complete idiots, it really shouldn't matter that they're not circumcised.
Though I think calling it mutilation is a bit of a stretch...
Yes, you may be able to soon have your foreskin regenerated. What was stolen at birth for the profit of a doctor will probably be able to be bought back for the profit of biomedical companies in the near future.
Yes, you may be able to soon have your foreskin regenerated. What was stolen at birth for the profit of a doctor will probably be able to be bought back for the profit of biomedical companies in the near future.
This has always been glaringly obvious to me. It is practically unthinkable for my uncircumsized self to wear underwear whilst my foreskin is drawn back. It's too sensitive and very uncomfortable. But circumsized men think nothing of it.
This reason alone is why I've always been against circumscion (even if it's never been scientifically qualified)
It's a religious tradition born out of a need for cleanliness in a time where regular bathing was not the norm. Regardless of its secondary effects on sexual sensitivity, I'm against it purely because it's an archaic and outdated tradition with no basis in modern medical science. An expensive, scarring and permanent procedure can be circumvented (no pun intended) with a $2 bar of soap.
On October 12 2007 06:34 pyrogenetix wrote: i heard theres this trick where you pinch your foreskin and piss into it and your foreskin will fill with piss then you let go and a foreskin piss balloon will erupt sending piss flying everywhere.
an italian friend told me thats what they would do in the showers after training.
On October 12 2007 06:34 pyrogenetix wrote: i heard theres this trick where you pinch your foreskin and piss into it and your foreskin will fill with piss then you let go and a foreskin piss balloon will erupt sending piss flying everywhere.
an italian friend told me thats what they would do in the showers after training.
Best post on TL ever made.
I did this once... when jerking off... did NOT... end well. In my defense I was 11ish.
On April 22 2009 03:33 Eatme wrote: Try to watch the Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episode on the topic. Really scary stuff that I cant imagine you want to do to a child or yourself. Apparently circumcision was popularised to fight masturbation.
Tell me this, I don't want to watch Penn & Teller but does it have something to do with your skin ripping a bit and forming scabs?
On April 22 2009 03:33 Eatme wrote: Try to watch the Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episode on the topic. Really scary stuff that I cant imagine you want to do to a child or yourself. Apparently circumcision was popularised to fight masturbation.
Tell me this, I don't want to watch Penn & Teller but does it have something to do with your skin ripping a bit and forming scabs?
It removes sensitivity (a lot according to the 2007 study), it also makes it necessary for you to have lubricant on hand (haha).
On April 22 2009 09:19 Ellis wrote: Circumcision arguments are incredibly pointless. Everyone will just argue for how their own penises are. It isn't like someone will go and say "You're right, my penis is the inferior shape."
I'm in the U.S. and am self-conscious about it sometimes because I am in the minority. Either way your parents make a decision for you about it, I'm not sure what I'd do if I had a son. I can't imagine getting it done now, I love my penis, but it would be something to not stress about since some girls are against the uncut thing but no one is against the cut "look." Here, at least.
man a lot of late circumcision here, I got mine when I was 8 so it's pretty hard for the 1st week then I got a double head because of it. Still I don't think it makes any difference man.
But here, we make fun of Filipino guys for being uncircumcised due to the Bible! Thanks bible! ^_^
Whenever it comes up I speak proudly of my whole-ness, but I'm not going to be like "oh I'm so self-conscious!" Girls have never said anything but it's not like they would if it were small or something. But I looked up data and got out a ruler to be sure it wasn't.
Several gay guys have expressed interest though, I guess some of them like uncut wangs. I don't think I'll get it done, but if someone ever turns me down for that reason alone, which I've heard of, I'll cry my way all the way to the hospital.
There is only one correct answer to the question, everything else is backwards rationalization from people who refuse to blame their parents for robbing their sexual pleasure.
On September 15 2010 14:22 Therapist.. wrote: There is only one correct answer to the question, everything else is backwards rationalization from people who refuse to blame their parents for robbing their sexual pleasure.
At the same time, it's really very hard to find negative testimonials from people that got circumcised during adult life. You would think that there would be a lot of "I GOT CIRCUMCISED AND IT'S ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE" stories going around with the way that people paint circumcision, but they're just not there as far as I've been able to tell. Of course, it's a biased sample because anyone getting circumcised later in life will have it done of their own choice.
I dunno... it's just always seemed kind of silly to me that all of the people leading the anti-circumcision parade have never even actually experienced the difference between the two.
That said, I'm not really in favor of circumcision, because there's no need to perform surgery on your infant when it's not necessary. But it's hardly the soul-damaging torture that some people seem to think it is.
I used to be uncircumcised, but when I hit 10, I keep getting minor irritations under my foreskin, frequently needing to apply antibiotic cream. Since circumcision, I've been fine. But that's one man's experience.
Here's the deal about Circumcision. My Dad has talked to me about this topic for a very long time now. He was circumcised, and has a very strong opinion about it. My mother is a pediatricion, I was not circumcised, I'll paraphrase what he has said to me:
"Circumcision is a horrible thing. It is nothing short of mutilation. They cut off Baby Foreskins for no medical reason, without the child's consent, and sell it to companies to grow skin Grafts. Doctors encourage Circumcision so that they can get paid money for the practice. I can deal with what happened to me. I can accept it. The fact that this idiotic practice continues today. I will not walk into your mother's Office and shake the hands off somebody who willingly cuts off baby penises.
"There are also a lot of assholes in this world. A lot of guys my age, from the 1960's and such, were circumcised. Almost everybody was. Why? Well the Practice originated due to the Jews. A very long time ago Jews, according to their religious beliefs, would have the very tip of the foreskin cut off. It wasn't the whole thing, and the Glans is still protected, mostly. But some people were frustrated because the Jews could "Pass themselves off" as non-jews. So they started ripping the entire foreskin off. According to their religious beliefs, the foreskin had to be rent with a sharpened fingernail, otherwise it wasn't a true circumcision. Lot's of jews were circumcised, and these people (as almost everybody is) is insecure and embarrassed. They didn't want to see their children to look different from them, and they would be "reminded" of something they lost whenever they saw their kids. Another part of it is these assholes also wanted to inflict that which was inflicted upon them, Bullies are bullied, right?
"Inevitably, some of those people grew up to be doctors, and those doctors would promote the procedure because of their own insecurities. Who's the patient? You cater to the health and safety of the patient, not your own personal desire and money. None of the studies on circumcision are legitimate studies. Most of them are run by biased doctors who have to find an excuse to do it to other people. They have to convince themselves that they are doing something good.
"Without a foreskin to protect the glans of my penis, the glans itself would get callused and chafed. I would lose feeling in the glans for weeks at a time, and because it wasn't protected it would scrape against my pants and I would feel everything. My penis would be moved and stimulated all the time and I would get erections all the time. It's like tearing down your garage and leaving your car out in the open every day, 24/7.
I started taping what little foreskin I had forward when I was 27, after I'd read about doing it in a book. I went out and played basketball, and I was so comfortable, that it REALLY pissed me off. I could jump around and shoot hoops, not having that chafed skin and uncomfortable movement every time I stepped. I was mad, at my asshole dad, the doctor who did it to me, and that it was done. Why was it done? No medical reason. None. It's supremely less comfortable to not have a foreskin, and taping the shaft-skin forward is not nearly the same as having it."
Hopefully I'm not fanning any flames back to life, but The New York Times had a really interesting article today on circumcision. Some food for thought: there have been three studies that show circumcising adult heterosexual males is one of the most effective “vaccines” against AIDS — reducing the chances of infection by 60 percent or more — and our public health experts want to increase the practice. By a lot. Their goal is to have upwards of 20 million males cut by 2015. These experts are also introducing revolutionary devices to facilitate doctors in the procedure without the dangers of sharp instruments, negating possible accidents. In fact, the PrePex (the current leading device among rival instruments) is basically a rubber band fastened to a plastic ring. Nurses can be trained to use it in three days and it takes minutes to attach (a skilled and trained surgeon needs 15+ minutes). I've linked the article for those who want to read it for more details.
It stems from articles of cleanliness and religious tradition, either way you cut it (all puns intended) it's ultimately undecided by most, and even more one of the most irrelevant facets of existence.
Fact: People with foreskin have to clean themselves regularly or risk infections of various sorts
Fact: People that are circumcised do not have to deal with that.
Opinion: Regardless of situation, if you are on the fence about what you would do for your child, ask your wife. If she is as clueless as you are, play it safe.
Didn't want to start a new thread so I'm necroing a random and general circumcision thread. Hope it's not against policies. Supposedly a model was made to predict that the dropping circumcision rate to the level of Europe will cost billions. One thing I find facinating is that it says that the people with the lowest income have the least chance of circumcision and highest chance of infection. Wouldn't it make sense for those with the least money to have higher chance of developing health complications anyway? Not sure if it should be taken as an correlation of circumcision with health benefits. Another interesting thing is that they had a cost per men figure at 407 dollars and more interestingly, 43 for women. What does this refer to? The transmission of STD by proxy from uncircumsized men?
Morality aside, there's a question of whether insurance should make the coverage of circumcision mandatory. I doubt this will blow up as a political issue but health care is a fairly big topic at the moment in America. Thoughts?
This whole argument should be ignored since it just ends up in Europe vs USA. Personally I've never really heard of anybody having problems with infections, though. Should we ban fast food because of problems with obesity and heart problems and all the other negative health effects from obesity?
EPT
![[image loading]](http://images.southparkstudios.com/img/content/characters/62a.jpg)
.
