I figure this is the appropriate board to have a discussion about this topic. I would post on /b/, but it would inevitably devolve into a name-calling shitfest of "uncut-fags vs cut-fags". I've done some searching around for research papers and studies on the internet, and I've found mixed results about the benefits and harms of infant circumcision.
Primary claims, that I have seen, for benefits have been as follows
1: Circumcision reduces the chances of transmission of the HIV/AIDS virus, because the glans and the inner foreskin are exposed and therefore keratinize, and a keratinized layer of skin is harder for the HIV/AIDS virus to cross than a thin, wet membrane, as would be present in an intact penis.
2: Circumcision reduces the chances of developing penile cancer later in life, as the development of penile cancer is thought to be heavily influenced by the presence of oils, dead skin cells, dirt, etc. trapped under the un-retracted foreskin of an intact penis.
3: Circumcision increases the cleanliness of the penis, helping to prevent conditions such as Urinary Tract Infections in infants and Phimosis in men of all ages.
I want to see what others think of these medical justifications, as well as whether or not infant circumcision should be permitted for religious or cultural reasons, or any reason other than theraputic (i.e. the removal of the foreskin is required to treat serious, present health issues of the infant). I am of the belief that these primary claims I have listed are not significant enough to ethically allow infant circumcision, nor should it be allowed for any reason other than theraputic. For context, I was circumcised as an infant, and, given the opportunity, I would go back in time and prevent it.
>>8027951
>reduces the chances of transmission of the HIV/AIDS virus
Choose partners wisely, don't be the whore of bablyon, don't fuck impoverised minorites, prostitutes or engage in gay sex and HIV/AIDS is a lol-tier meme you don't have to worry about. If you are gay, use protection religiously.
>reduces the chances of transmission of the HIV/AIDS virus
lol tier meme
>Circumcision increases the cleanliness of the penis
lmaforofl-tier meme, very dank pepe. Fucking soap and a once a week shower totally negate this "pro" to circumcision.
The only reason to get circumsized would be for medical reasons (phimosis). Religious reasons are just fucking retarded.
>>8027971
I agree with you for the most part, although from what I've read it seems possible and not very difficult to treat most cases of phimosis with non-surgical methods, such as stretching the foreskin gently or using a medical ointment. So I think even for phimosis, circumcision would not be necessary a vast majority of the time.
>>8027951
Uncut here, every woman I've been with says it is better for hand jobs and looks fine when hard. Only problem they've had is the anteater look when I'm limp. For hygiene, I don't fuck people with AIDS since I don't live in Africa, I wash down there every day so smell/smegma/infection is not a problem, and I've never had cancer due to dick skin, surprisingly enough. Basically, uncut is prime for sex unless you have erectile dysfunction.
>>8027971
See, this is why I avoid this discussion online.
Guy gets directly in defense mode and posts no positives of being uncut , or even a research or findings for why uncut is better.
Just a bunch of "hue hue meme meme wash your pee pee" bravado.
Unfortunately anon I don't think we will ever be able to discuss this intelligently on an anonymous image board. I however do like how you worded your question and was really hoping to have a decent discussion about this. Oh well, maybe another time and place my friend.
>>8028090
There are no positives, Europe is uncut and doesn't have higher STD rates. It's a dumb tradition that needs to die. Niggers in the jungle do this why the fuck is the West still doing this?
>>8028190
>no counter argument
You aren't doing the thread any favor either.
I personally think all females should be circumcised, OP.
>>8028239
Here here brother. I believe studies show cicumsised women get less bitchy and do more work when they are cicumcised.
>>8027951
The risk of acquiring HIV from an infected partner even without condom use is very low at about 0.2%. So assuming that circumcision actually reduces the risk by 50% then it would only change to 0.1%.
The same could be said for penile cancer and other conditions that is claimed to be helped by circumcision.
So while there are probably benefits, there are also risks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
A 2010 review of literature found circumcisions performed by medical providers to have a typical complication rate of 1.5% for babies and 6% for older children, with few cases of severe complications.[19]
I hope you can help me /sci/
I have phimosis, also my dick is small. I was thinking about getting circumsized maybe in some years, but I doubt I will save enough money to do so (I live in a shithole country)
What to do? Is there any non-surgical method to remove that skin or at least stretch it enough so I can see my dick's head?
I know I have smegma down there since I literally can't pull down the skin down, sadly.
Please help me /sci/
>>8028469
If you stretch it slowly every day you will be able to fix it. When skin is stretched it induces mitosis, and the cells duplicate and grow more skin(this is why you don't pop if you get fat.) You can search for guides online, but you just have to be persistent.
>>8027951
Everyone in this thread should watch Penn and Teller's episode of "Bullshit!" on circumcision if you have the time. It is entertaining and informative.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=416_1218124584
>>8028469
Like >>8028577 said, just stretch it every day until it starts hurting, at which point you should stop and hold it in that position for a minute or so. Do this a few times every day, and within a few months, you'll be able to fully retract your foreskin.
You can talk to your doctor about this method, and a lot of them will prescribe you a cream (inexpensive) that accelerates the process. You can desensitize the head of your penis by running water over the newly-exposed segments, before progressing to soft objects, then your hands, and so on.
Do not try to stretch the foreskin further than is comfortable, cause you could really fuck your shit up. As long as you're not feeling pain, you're in the clear.
>>8027951
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLmU6xTdeTI
Let's just drop the euphemisms and call circumcision what it is: Male Genital Mutilation.
I mean, similar reasoning (cleanliness and disease reduction) is used to advocate for Female Genital Mutilation, so why not?
>>8028690
I agree. Some countries have less extreme versions of FGM that only remove the clitoral hood, and are exactly analogous to MGM. I think that all of it is wrong.
>>8028090
>>8028190
OP here. While I can understand your frustration at people trying to devolve the conversation to a lower level, you do have to understand that this is a very emotional topic for people, as it rightfully should be. I don't believe that one person making these types of comments should completely ruin the thread, and if you truly want to have a conversation about this topic, you should be able to overlook that.
I've provided some common reasons for infant circumcision, but as I said in the OP, I don't believe any of them can ethically be used to justify infant circumcision. The incidence rate for significantly acute complications from infant circumcision is 12 times higher than the incidence rate of penile cancers, so it seems absurd to me that people could use prevention of penile cancer as a justification. Additionally, though there are disturbingly few studies about the potential negative effects of infant circumcision, those that do exist seem to suggest that infant circumcision is a very traumatic experience for the child, and can lead to problems with behavioral development and psychological issues later in life. I want to hear why people think that infant circumcision is acceptable, and see if they can convince me of their standpoint or vice versa.
>>8028857
Also, for the record, I believe that male and female genital mutilation are equally abhorrent, regardless of their justifications. People will say that Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) and Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) are incomparable for any number of reasons. I think anyone would agree that FGM is abhorrent regardless of the intentions of the perpetrator, whether they choose to do it for religious, social, or nebulously medical reasons, simply because it will always result in altering the girl's body without her consent. The same is true of MGM, but our culture is desensitized to this fact, because MGM is the norm. If similar medical benefits could be attained by removing the prepuce (in men the prepuce is called the foreskin, in women it is called the clitoral hood) from young girls, I doubt there are any people in the United States that would agree to "circumcise" their newborn girl. This suggests that the foreskin is somehow "lesser" than any other part of the body (in particular, that the male prepuce is "lesser" than the female prepuce, sexism in the full), as there is no other part of the human body which can be removed without the informed consent of the patient, excepting therapeutic reasons.
>>8027951
>>8028862
Assuming that is true, that is absolutely disgusting. Social and cultural norms stand in the way of ethical treatment of newborn boys.
>>8027951
Gen 34:15 Only on this condition will we agree to that: that you become like us by having every male among you circumcised. 16 Then we will give you our daughters and take your daughters in marriage; we will settle among you and become one people. 17 But if you do not listen to us and be circumcised, we will take our daughter and go.”
18 Their proposal pleased Hamor and his son Shechem. 19 The young man lost no time in acting on the proposal, since he wanted Jacob’s daughter. Now he was more highly regarded than anyone else in his father’s house. 20 So Hamor and his son Shechem went to the gate of their city and said to the men of their city: 21 “These men are friendly toward us. Let them settle in the land and move about in it freely; there is ample room in the land for them. We can take their daughters in marriage and give our daughters to them. 22 But only on this condition will the men agree to live with us and form one people with us: that every male among us be circumcised as they themselves are. 23 Would not their livestock, their property, and all their animals then be ours? Let us just agree with them, so that they will settle among us.”
24 All who went out of the gate of the city listened to Hamor and his son Shechem, and all the males, all those who went out of the gate of the city, were circumcised. 25 On the third day, while they were still in pain, two of Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, brothers of Dinah, each took his sword, advanced against the unsuspecting city and massacred all the males. 26 After they had killed Hamor and his son Shechem with the sword, they took Dinah from Shechem’s house and left. 27 Then the other sons of Jacob followed up the slaughter and sacked the city because their sister had been defiled. 28 They took their sheep, cattle and donkeys, whatever was in the city and in the surrounding country. 29 They carried off all their wealth, their children, and their women, and looted whatever was in the houses.
>>8028862
You should at least cite a legitimate medical journal and not some buzz-feed shock image.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1093.x/abstract
>>8028874
Out of curiosity have you heard of Paul Tinari, the guy who did this experiment?
Crazy shit. He was circumcised age 8 without anesthesia as punishment for allegedly having masturbated. Dr. Tinari denies he had been masturbating and said some bratty kid he went to school with lied to a priest there and said he'd seen him jerking it, so the priest arranged for a mohel to come and cut off his foreskin.
The circumcision left him with a scarred pocket of tissue that caught dirt and caused his penis to be chronically infected.
>>8027951
While you're at it just remove tonsils and appendix right?
That will prevent a lot of common health problems too right OP?
OP?
you're a faggot.
>>8029072
New, less invasive surgeries could potentially make tonsillectomy obsolete.
Actually most tonsillectomies are bullshit, but in the few cases where the tonsils are causing issues, now there's a surgery where they can resurface them with a laser rather than hack out the entire tonsils with a clamp and scalpel.
Seems like most doctors just want to stick with the cruder surgeries they were taught in school rather than learn these more nuanced modern operations though.
Every one of these claims has been debunked, in length, with leading authorities... on an episode of Penn and Teller's BULLSHIT!
They only debunk woo and irrational bullcrap.
So, that's the level on nonsense you're dealing with.
>>8028190
>triggered by the word nigger
How fucking new is this guy. Fucking faggot.
>>8029125
Actually /b/tards don't usually come here and people are banned here all the time, especially /b/tards.
So, how new are you to /sci/?
Have you been here for years?
I doubt it.
>>8029138
I've been here longer than you I am sure. If you get triggered that quickly by a single word you should remove yourself from the internet altogether just to make sure you're feelings won't get hurt again. Its pathetic to see someone dismiss another's argument because they see the word 'nigger' and start pulling the racist card. It makes you a faggot. The fact that you immediately throw /b/ into the mix makes me think you only recently migrated from there, which makes you a newfag to this board. Lurk more, faggot.
I have no goddamn idea how this practice is still legal. It's legitimately, unquestionably child abuse. Cutting off ANY other part of a baby would get you in prison, yet this surgery done without anaesthetic is allowed because people who lived in the desert over 2000 years ago thought it was important for religious reasons?
>>8029176
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Treatment
>>8028190
nigger
>>8028190
retarded shill
>>8028190
Do you stop black people on their way and get mad at them for saying nigger ? Bitching about how unintelligent they are for using derogatory racist words ?
Ofcourse not you coward faggot. You're just a self righteous white knight trying to claim high grounds on an image board where nobody gives a fuck who you are. Next time you see a black guy blurting "nigger", please stop him and express your deep dissapointment. I'd like to see you get your ass kicked back to your parents basement :^)
>>8029123
Yes, that was a very good episode.
>>8027951
I have a strong opinion on this, because I was circumcised at birth, and when I found out about it when I was ~11, I saw it as morally wrong. I think that everyone has the right to a whole and fully functional body. The only reason that surgery should be done to someone who can't consent is if it will save their life, or significantly improve their quality of life.
The prevalence of myths about the foreskin being dirty baffles me. The only studies that show circumcision as having any sort of benefit are from people that have a strong cultural bias.
I started restoring my foreskin when I was 11 years old, and I had a functional foreskin by the time I was ~12. It made an amazing difference, I would highly recommend trying it if you are cut. It does not give you any more nerves, but it allows your glans and inner foreskin remnant to stay protected from air and cloth. Once I had full coverage, the skin on my glans and inner foreskin became noticeably thinner and more sensitive. This is because they went back to being properly functioning mucous membranes, just like the inside of your mouth, or eyelid. I have started working on it again recently, just because I would like to have a bit more foreskin.
If any of you ever have a son, please do not circumcise them. The benefits are supported by flawed studies, and even if the procedure goes "well" it permanently modifies their anatomy in a negative way.
>>8028862
sickening
>>8027971
>Fucking soap
Don't wash your dick with soap idiot.
>>8027951
All of these considerations should be made by an adult. It's just wrong to give someone a needless operation without them having a say in it. Here in the Netherlands we have the "inviolability of the body" in our constitution and I don't see why jew circumcision clinics are even allowed to exist.
>>8029808
>an adult
By which I mean the guy whose dick it is himself, at the age of 18, obviously.
>>8029176
>Cutting off ANY other part of a baby
kek
>>8028868
/thread
If you disagree you are a fedora tipping nerd loser.
>>8029072
OP here, if you had any reading comprehension skills at all, you would notice that I am staunchly against any kind of genital cutting, unless it is the least invasive method available, and needed to treat a clear and present threat to the child's health.
>I am of the belief that these primary claims I have listed are not significant enough to ethically allow infant circumcision, nor should it be allowed for any reason other than therapeutic.
Nonetheless, I am glad that you agree with me in that circumcision is a practice that we should stop.
>>8029800
what do you suggest then? bleach?
>>8029884
Just water. Soap can be used if needed, but it messes with the skin, just like using soap on a vagina.
>>8029937
Most guys do fine using soap on the cutaneous parts of their penis. It's the mucosal and mucocutaneous parts that are less likely to respond well to soap.
>>8029937
>using soap on a vagina
You monster
Dirty vagina is best vagina
Which cultures favor neonatal mutilation and what else do they have in common?
>>8030192
America, the Middle East, The Philippines, South Korea (due to American influence), Kenya, Nigeria, Bangla Desh
>>8027951
There are no positive benefits to elective circumcision. There are however a laundry list of negatives the biggest being changes in the brain of the infant that negatively affect the person into adulthood.
>>8029825
>t. fedora that didn't even read the whole thing
>>8029825
Well, the reason that they circumcised those people and then killed them was because one of them raped their sister.
>>8030565
But he took responsibility and married her, senpai.
>>8030610
He had his father ask her father to make her marry him. And her brothers did not want any of that.
>>8027951
OP your whole argument revolves around having a calloused dick that could somehow decrease stds, that doesn't make sense to me. Most people in america are circumecised, at least i think so, and they still sell condoms here. And as far as the cleanliness goes, just wash your dick. My balls get dirty too, should I just cut them off? Seriously, a vag gets more moist in all its folds then a dick and they arent doing female circumcisions.
The benefits to being circumcised that I found is:
No lube when jerking it
no gross scars
I've never been circumcised so I don't know, but I assume I feel more through my dick. After all you said the dick becomes callous and not intact
I think it shouldn't be preformed as a child. I think the reason people get so defensive is because they're alraedy circumcised and can't do anything about it. If you could see how the other side lives then maybe you would be all for it. It literally serves no purpose, if you can't be bothered to wash your dick then cut it off
>>8030744
Reread the last paragraph, OP is against circumcision.
>>8030744
>they arent doing female circumcisions.
Welcome to Islam
OP again, >>8030749 this anon is correct. I'm primarily looking to see if people actually want to argue that the reasons I listed are justification enough to violate an individuals right to an intact body.
>>8030744
That is not my argument, but rather several arguments used commonly to support the practice of circumcision. I understand that I only list purported benefits in the OP, but seriously reading comprehension should not be this hard. I explicitly state in the last sentence that I am against any kind of infant genital mutilation unless it is therapeutic in nature. Regardless of that, I don't mean to belittle your intelligence, and I am glad that you feel circumcision is wrong. The largely negative response to circumcision that I'm seeing in this thread gives me hope for the future.
>>8030775
Part of what makes me angry about this is that people rightfully see, in this case, that religious freedom should end when we start chopping off parts of our children (as FGM is at least illegal, if not a felony, in any non-shithole country, even symbolic pricks to draw blood). Yet when making male circumcision illegal is brought up, everyone suddenly feels like we're oppressing Jews and Muslims by forbidding them from cutting up their babies genitals. I can somewhat sympathize with the argument that if we do immediately make infant circumcision illegal, some people will still go and get it done in back-alley places, but making it a felony crime will at least insure that parents who do this to their children are appropriately dealt with, and greatly reduce the number of children who have their rights violated in this manner.
>>8028868
jewish circumcision predates the torah by 1000 years
it's appearance in the torah is generally considered a way to justify the practice as a commandment from God, so that jew's wouldn't feel bad about mutilating their son's genitals.
the actual source of religious circumcision is highly speculative; nobody knows
>>8028862
circumcision is one of the few actual jewish conspiracies.
>>8030905
In the US circumcision was started by Seventh Day Adventists as a "cure" to masturbation.
Animals don't need circunssision, humans evolving and in a thousand cultures didn't and still don't need circunssision. Yet, some supertitious desert dwellers knew better, and here we are grasping at straws on why a person needs to remove of their dickhead skin when born. Because clearly every other creature walks with their glans exposed and the almighty Creator demands us so...Because reasons. Also don't eat pig.
Sincerely, I like discussion about this topic. It remember me how people are dumb and that you can argue about anything with enough social backup.
My favorite pet theory is made around the study that says the trauma of circumssision causes brain damage in the newborns, which with enough luck may develop into psychopathy in a later age.
I'm having a hard time believing that a circumcised guy actually cares about this. This has to be an uncircumcised guy jealous or something.
>>8030975
Well you can believe what you like, but that doesn't change the fact that there are definitely circumcised guys out there who feel that their body was mutilated and their rights violated. I know, I'm one of them.
>>8030993
>I'm sad over a fucking piece of skin that hangs over my crotch.
>muh dick muh dick muh dick dick dick dick muh choice dick my dick penis me me me cock my cock
>>8030959
>It remember me how people are dumb
Do you have to buy two plane tickets whenever you fly so that your ego can fit as well? Do they even let you on public transit? Can you walk through normal sized doors?
Having an ego that large must be quite the chore.
>>8030975
>I'm having a hard time believing that a circumcised guy actually cares about this. This has to be an uncircumcised guy jealous or something.
you're clearly a circumcised guy with some repressed trauma
the link posted earlier:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1093.x/abstract
might help you better understand your feelings, and move you past the denial stage
>>8030840
>jewish circumcision predates the torah by 1000 years
Abraham predates Moses by 1000 years
>>8031004
>Studies show that women actually get more pleasure from piercing through a woman's clit a 15 inch dildo thicker than your arm than a normal dick.
>Studies show that redigesting diarrhea can improve your health
No worries on my end. You're complaining probably more about behavioural developmental issues than the physical. Oh, look, we both ended up on 4chan.
I think the thing many forget is that cultural reasons are actually genuine reasons, in that penile appearance does have an affect on life quality and in many places circumcision is just the way "normal" penises look. I agree that everyone would be better off if nobody circumcised any babies anymore, but if everyone else is doing it, it's hard to go against the flow. I only know one guy who is uncircumcised and people make fun of him. He's pretty defensive about it and I wouldn't want my kid to have that experience.
>>8031015
The trends are changing, especially on the west coast of the US. Infant circumcision rates are ~15% in Washington for example. Cutting just because everyone else does is just perpetuating mindless mutilation. I would rather be made fun of for having a whole body than feel good about myself for having a piece of my dick amputated.
>>8031021
You should probably seek a psychiatrist then concerning not only your circumcision.
>>8031021
It just doesn't seem like it would be worth it to lead that kind of charge. I agree that circumcision is mindless, but it's not actually that bad. I am cut and never give it a second thought at all. On the other hand, that uncut guy I know says things like "at least I'm not mutilated" while getting visibly upset every time the conversation comes up.
>>8031012
>some study exists and is not legitimate
>somehow a relevant argument about the legitimacy of a paper that somebody else in another field wrote about another topic
>>8031037
Yet, still, we both ended up on 4chan.
Your "studies" are invalid when you have more uncut men lined up here ready to post a thread about circumcision who are more butthurt and with more psychological problems than those who underwent "mutilation". I am perfectly fine as I rest here, eating a bowl of nuts and a smoothie, listening to some music that makes me feel pretty darn good.
>>8031046
OP clearly stated he was a circumcised male would have chosen not to be circumcised, had he been given the option of an informed choice (obviously this is not possible for an infant)
Talk about how happy you are, but if you ever want to get help, then reading that article might help you. Of course maybe for you it's better to keep the trauma repressed. Or it's of course possible that you don't have any trauma, but your ego necessitates that you bash others on the internet and tell them how happy you are.
>>8031062
>>8031062
It would be taboo to attempt to discredit that "statement", so I won't.
>>8031067
Have you seen all the threads made by uncircumcised manics?
The fact is, despite however much you want to shove the "trauma" card down my own throat (causing probably more trauma than an event that happened before I was even conscious 24 years ago), I am just as fine as most others. I find it bizarre that those who mostly take a leaping stance on this subject are the uncircumcised entering full-throttle into the thread with their propaganda.
Trust me, relax. We are fine, besides the few, like SJWs, who feel that their rights are always being violated.
>>8027951
>mudslimes
>>8031085
Do you believe humans should have the right to an intact body? Would you find it bizarre if the people most fervently against foot-binding were those who did not have their feet bound as a child, while those who did have their feet bound simply saw it as normal because it's how they've lived their entire lives? Would you expect girls who grew up in a society where foot-binding was the norm to realize they had been mutilated or had their rights violated, or just accept their situation as perfectly OK?
You have to realize that the societies in which we live desensitize us to certain things. It is completely OK to be happy about your circumcision as a child, and I'm not going to try to tell you that you have repressed feelings of violation--that's not my place, I'm not a psychologist. However, in every first world country, to the best of my knowledge, the right to an intact body is completely upheld, excepting those places that allow circumcision. Then the only part of a human body that you can remove without the consent of the patient them self is the foreskin. If you cut off a clitoral hood of a woman without her informed, legal consent (i.e. she must be an adult), you are a criminal. In order for male circumcision to not be a human rights violation, you have to either ignore the fact that the foreskin is a completely natural part of the male human body or somehow justify to yourself that it is "lesser" than every other part of the human body, to such a degree that it does not deserve the same kind of protection afforded to every other part of your body.
>>8030905
>few
>>8031183
Well, it's not the government circumcising babies. Parents make the decision to alter the body of their child for health and aesthetic purposes. Parents cut the hair and nails of their child, even though to cut an adult's hair without their consent would be assault. In cases of hermaphrodites babies, the parents make the call on what to cut off. If a kid is born with 3 feet the parents can decide to cut the extra foot off. Parents can even pierce their kid's ears if they want.
Besides, having it done as a baby is better than having it done as an adult. Babies may feel pain but they forget so it doesn't matter. I don't know how those brain scan studies can disprove the fact that nobody remembers their infant circumcision and circumcised and uncircumcised people act exactly the same.
>>8028320
this is completely inaccurate. The risk of catching HIV from a shedding partner averages around 20%. The risk decreases enormously if the infected individual is undergoing medication, and further decrease if the uninfected individual is under an HIV-PREP.
>>8029117
Laser surgery is crazy expensive tough, and tonsillectomy is a rather easy operation anyway
>>8031278
>Parents make the decision to alter the body of their child for health and aesthetic purposes
>altering your child's genitalia for your own aesthetic preferences
>>8031458
For the child's aesthetic purposes you uncut mongolian
>>8031511
No, you are not doing it because the child thinks it looks better, you are doing it because you think it looks better. The only reason that you think it looks better to have a scar on your dick and a dried out head is because you are used to it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-earp/does-circumcision-reduce-_b_9743242.html
>>8031085
I am circumcised and I fucking hate it.
Give me my foreskin back.
If you're so gung-ho about defending this procedure than me leaving your little club won't make a difference.
So give it back.
>>8031705
I was circumsized as a kid and have no issues, but how can you compare unless you have experienced both? All i know is i still have enough foreskin to cover my head and then some when i pull on it.
>>8031085
Most of the threads that I have seen are started by people who are not happy that they were circumcised. Some of them do not mention weather OP is cut, so maybe you assume that he isn't.
>>8031714
I'm another person, but I have experienced being cut, and restoring my foreskin. It does not grow back any nerves, but it restores the glans and inner foreskin remnant to being mucous membranes. It has made a big difference in what I can feel with my penis. Rubbing on cloth all day desensitizes the glans quite a bit, I know this from experience.
>>8031278
Hair and nails grow back, and they do not expose mucous membranes to dry out and become desensitized. Removing the clitoral hood is exactly analogous to circumcision, and it is still very illegal. It works the same way on females as it does on males. Some doctors used to recommend it for health reasons, before it was banned.
>believing that circumcision is healthy
Sure Mr Goldstein
>>8027951
You can never have an objective discussion of this issue. Anything dealing with the penis is far too personal, and it's even worse that circumcision is a binary issue. In my best attempt at an objective opinion, circumcision may have been necessary, or at least seen as necessary, decades ago. But it became the cultural norm in America so parents perpetuate circumcision almost traditionally through their sons. There are certainly fewer complications associated with circumcised penises than uncircumcised ones, but I don't believe it's enough to warrant the procedure on a solely medical basis.
As an American, I'm happy to be circumcised. It's what girls are used to, and my foreign buddies have told me that they've been met with criticism by American girls for being uncut. The grass is always greener, though.
>>8031794
Circumcision does have many complications that you can't know about until later, so they do not get reported on in many official reports. Sometimes too much skin is cut off and erections are very painful once puberty comes. Also, look up botched circumcisions and skin bridges. Some people say that circumcision is to make it easier to clean, but skin bridges are fairly common, and if you get one, it is very difficult to clean under, as it is permanently healed to your glans. I wouldn't say that circumcised penises have less issues.
I'm happy that you are happy with your circumcision, but I am not happy with mine. If you do choose to have children, please do not circumcise your son.
>>8031714
>I was circumsized as a kid and have no issues, but how can you compare unless you have experienced both?
The foreskin is part of the penis, like the glans is--except the ridged band of the foreskin has a more specialized pattern of innervation than the glans (richer in tactile corpuscles). It's a healthy, normal, functional body part. Having all your functional parts in good order is better than missing functional parts.
Also, my circumcision is so tight that when I wake up in the morning with morning wood I can feel my dick about to burst through its skin. It's been constant pain whenever I get an erection for over 2 decades now and the reason IS because there's not enough skin to accommodate an erection.
Taylor and Lockwood who studied this back in the 90's (their work published in the british journal of urology) described this as being a frequent problem in the circumcised dicks they studied.
>All i know is i still have enough foreskin to cover my head and then some when i pull on it.
You have a loose circumcision. I got a tight one. The skin doesn't move at all. That's not a "botch"--it's just a different and more extreme circumcision style, which was extremely common back in the 80's and before.
Either way, the ridged band of the foreskin has been shown to be the part of the penis with the most pleasurable nerve endings and pretty much all circumcisions destroy the ridged band.
>>8031183
I have no problem being circumcised because it doesn't stink, it is aesthetically better, and most prefer it, and I still feel pretty much everything I need to if I can cum in less than 3 minutes pumping away. For my first sexual encounter in my high school, the girl wanted cut, she even said it beforehand. Then, a few years later, I had a regular hookup with someone 10 years older than me, who, too, only wanted cut and asked about it beforehand. No "repressed trauma" involved. If I was given the option the revert back to uncircumcised, I'd politely refuse. I wouldn't want it any other way.
>>8031830
>I still feel pretty much everything I need to if I can cum in less than 3 minutes pumping away
Look at the way you describe sex. A focus on pumping and cumming.
That's because you're missing the part of your penis that senses gentle movements and gentle stretching, and gives you waves of intense pleasure in the ridged band BEFORE the climax.
Sex is supposed to feel amazing the whole way through, and you shouldn't have to need to 'pump away' to feel anything.
>>8031830
A minority of people prefer it. Only 1/5 of men are circumcised, and most of them are muslim. Circumcision was the norm in the US, but the rates are steadily dropping, especially in the West. The infant circumcision rate in Washington is ~15%.
Intact penises stinking is a myth. The only reason that you think that cut penises look better is because it is normal to you. To the rest of the world, it looks offputting to see a scar on a dick.
It is good that you like the state your dick is in, but people should have a right to choose that for themselves. If you have a child, please do not circumcise him.
>>8031815
>>8031808
>>8028002
Doctors in the US have been known to jump straight to circumcision for phimosis and related issues, even if there are much easier ways of fixing the problem.
>>8027951
Hey so are you saying this because it's a religious thing for you or do you actually have a reason to research the actual effects of circumcision? I ask not because I want to shitpost religious faggotry off this board but because if you're a christfag then I instantly know your research isn't worth shit. You won't take this subject seriously and perform real, verifiable research unless you're unbiased about it.
>>8027951
But then again you could just wash your dick.
>>8032321
OP is against circumcision because he was cut and he wanted to have a choice. It is a pointless operation that was made common in the US as a 'cure' to masturbation.
Also, the new testament has some strong words against circumcision in Galatians 5.
>>8032321
The vast majority of circumcision in the US is secular. It started as a "cure" to masturbation, and then because of its prevalence, people started believing myths that it is cleaner.
>>8032714
>It started as a "cure" to masturbation
Pretty sure that's bullshit, but I don't care enough about the issue to actually research it.
>>8032746
Well then I will research it for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Harvey_Kellogg§ion=7#Masturbation_prevention
"A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed."
>>8031085
Circumcised, but I don't really care.
My psychologies been fucked up by much worse things than a surgery.
These threads are obnoxious to put it bluntly.
>>8032753
>The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment
i hope this man is being raped by satan's intact cock in the deepest depths of hell
>>8032784
Indeed. Even today, when the operation is performed on an infant, sometimes anesthetic is not used. When it is used it is not very strong at all, because infants can not handle it.
">"uncut fapping feels better m8
>>8032753
1. I'm not bored enough right now for Wikipedia.
2. That sounds like a quote from a specific guy, and without knowing why he thought that or why he was interested in circumcision in the first place,
3. I have no reason to believe he had anything to do with the practice of circumcision in the US.
4. What you quoted lacks sufficient context to say anything about the relevance of masturbation.
>>8033005
It is a quote from a book written John Harvey Kellogg, who was a Seventh Day Adventist (known for thinking sex is evil) and a leading doctor of his time. He introduced circumcision as a cure to masturbation, it caught on, and people continued it later because they wanted their sons to look like their fathers. He also recommended applying carbolic acid to the clitoris of girls caught masturbating. He believed that masturbation cause insanity, along with many other ailments.
>>8033022
>who was a Seventh Day Adventist
Then, directly:
>if he had anything to do with circumcision in the US
>then circumcision in the US is the result of some religious nut doing irrigorous research that we have no reason to trust
If it was a "cure" for masturbation, and that idea came from a Christian nut who was already presupposed to ignore any criticism of circumcision, then it was a result of religion bullshit and not real research.
>>8030617
>He had his father ask her father to make her marry him
That's how arranged marriages worked back in the day.
>And her brothers did not want any of that
Incest is wrong.
>>8033043
I am not saying that it is a cure for masturbation, I am saying that circumcision in the US started because people believed it was a cure for masturbation.
>>8033051
>because people believed
And that's where I say "dropped."
Beliefs aren't evidence of anything but beliefs.
>>8033068
I think you are misunderstanding me. I am saying that circumcision started in the US because people wanted to stop masturbation. It is a fact that their beliefs caused the practice to catch on.
>>8033076
>their beliefs caused
And that's where I stop caring.
If it all started because of Christian bullshit, I don't care about it. If an actual scientist studies it apart from motivated biases like religion, that's one thing and that might be interesting for me to read. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that I don't care about idiots trying to do science under false pretenses.
>>8031302
>this is completely inaccurate. The risk of catching HIV from a shedding partner averages around 20%. The risk decreases enormously if the infected individual is undergoing medication, and further decrease if the uninfected individual is under an HIV-PREP.
A citation on this? It does make sense and I would imagine that most people with HIV are on medication.
Got my information from the table in this link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS
It doesn't really specify though if the individuals are undergoing medication.
>>8033085
are you autistic, or are you just a different poster who jumped in this conversation?
>>8033112
>I would imagine that most people with HIV are on medication.
Heheh.
>reduces the likelihood of developing penile cancer
Op, you are drawing straws on reason 2. Just dont chew or smoke tobacco, clean your dick everyday with bodywash and your likelihood of getting penis cancer is incredibly low.
All this thread has done is showcase how incredibly poor /sci/'s reading comprehension is.
>>8033155
I would definitely agree with that. It is funny watching people that can't read sperg out over things.
>>8028857
Its not an emotional topic for anyone
>>8029070
That sounds horrible. Guess he shouldn't have masturbated at school
>>8029287
They usually say nigga and not nigger
>>8033175
people's sex organs and the mutilation of said organs is certainly an emotional topic for many people
>>8033187
I have never seen anyone in real life care. It is mostly a reddit and 4chan thing. Most people do not care or else there would be debates on the subject and it would breach into politics. It could just be I hang around in circles with people who don't talk much about dicks, but I don't care. I would say it does suck if a baby died or like someone's dick was literally mutilated and not just the foreskin cut off.
>>8033149
OP again, for the love of christ, people, READ. USE YOUR FUCKING HEADS. I DO NOT think that any of the reasons I listed in the OP can be used to ethically justify circumcision, but these are reasons people commonly use to come to the decision of circumcising their sons.
>>8033043
>a Christian
No, SDAs along with Mormons, JWs, and "Christian" "Scientists" aren't Christians for they deny the divinity of Christ/Trinity. Get your terminology right.
>>8031714
>I had my feet bound as a kid and I don't have any problems with it, but how can you compare unless you have experienced both? All I know is that I can still walk around, so what if it's more difficult?
>>8033137
To clarify, are you saying you don't care to learn about circumcision at all, even to stop it, if it began with a religious basis, or are you saying you won't consider circumcision beneficial until it moves away from religion?
It made sense to mutilate dicks when we were dirty goat farmers who never bathed in our lives...
Hell it still makes sense in the middle east since they are still dirty goat farmers who never bathe in their lives 2500 years later...
But for a civilized person not living in the 3rd world, who takes a shower every single day... It makes no sense.
>>8033286
I'm half-circumcized master race here. I have the best of both worlds going for me. I literally don't care one way or the other about the issue and I'm not going to support any movement in one direction or the other until there's a damn good reason for me to think someone's studied this with an open mind. The moment a religitard tries to justify their faith, it stops being about honest research with an open mind and starts being about closed-minded dogmatic attempts to maintain the status quo. I want science that challenges the status quo /just because it can/, not because it felt like there was a political or religious reason to challenge it. Science isn't about being a shitty rebel, it's about being a rebel even if you have to rebel against your own thoughts, ideas, dogmas, traditions, and culture.
I will only ever care when a decent person does some actual research on it.
I don't care if babies die. There are tons of ways birth can fail and it's a damn shame when they do, and it's a damn shame when it could have been prevented if the doctors were competent, but babies aren't the only ones that suffer from incompetent operators. It's just another margin of error in a world full of error-prone systems. If it could save billions that'd be one thing, but if it only saves 0.0003% of the population, I can't do anything to meaningfully affect it. If you want my vote to count for shit, make me know what I'm even voting for. Research it and give me the results of you earnest and minimally biases study. Give me some reason to have an non-marginal opinion.
>>8033200
>have never seen anyone in real life care
it's because people generally don't talk about genital trauma in casual conversations.
>>8033348
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1093.x/abstract
>>8033349
This. Especially because people do not want to seem insecure about their genitals in front of others.
>>8033348
I'm not completely anti-circumcision--If an adult wants to go through with the procedure on themselves, they are more than welcome to it, that's their right. Children do not have the opportunity to learn about the procedure or give any meaningful input on the topic, and it would be criminal to cut off literally any other part of a child's body unless it was the least invasive option available to treat a clear and present threat to the child's health. The question I ask is this--Should we require research to show that circumcision is harmful in order to stop the practice when it is the only practiced exception to the human right to an intact body? Of course I don't include exceptions like female genital mutilation and the like in third world countries, because those practices are universally condemned outside of the societies that practice them, and rightfully so.
>>8033350
OP again, just wanted to say thanks for linking that paper. I intend to have a discussion about my circumcision with my parents and my doctor in the coming months (I've wanted to wait until after I graduate university, so I don't have to worry about getting emotionally wrecked and that interfering with my studies), and I think that paper does a good job of putting the anti-circumcision stance into clear, understandable arguments.
>>8033425
>a clear and present threat to the child's health
I can easily admit that there is no such danger to a kid with an uncircumcised penis.
I just have no idea if I'm right or not. Because I haven't done the research. And I don't care about anyone until they've done the research with a clear mind. If you can't give me anything other than equivocation without a source, then I have to assume you haven't done the research.
>>8033257
Anyone have a link to a ebook/pdf of that book?
>>8033505
Do you take the same stance on female genital mutilation? Do we require research to show that other body parts are not "dangerous" before we stop cutting them off babies? Why do you need research to take a side on this issue? Do you refuse to take a stance on *anything* until research is provided? If anything, do you accept that humans have the right to an intact body, and that circumcision, research or no, is the only inconsistency to that rule? Would you take a mathematician seriously if they wanted to exclude the number 4 from the rules of algebra that govern all other numbers? If your beliefs are consistent, I won't fault you even if I disagree. You may be completely OK with circumcision being the one exception to the human right to an intact body, but I would like to understand why--how do you justify it?
>>8033765
>Do you take the same stance on female genital mutilation?
No, that I've actually heard some stuff about. It's a terrible practice that seems to serve no purpose at all. Pure superstition with no use.
But the physiological differences big are enough that I don't think the two compare at all. Sure, on principle, mutilation is wrong, but losing some foreskin seems about as meaningful to me as getting my nails clipped. If you really want to do a fair comparison then invent a way to grow back the foreskin and see how many people care to grow it back vs. how many adults go for circumcision. It's a stupid issue IMO and there's no way for me to have a real, informed opinion about it because I was literally only half-circumsized. I still have most of my foreskin, but it's not so long that I have to clean it. Or maybe not most, I wouldn't really know.
Seriously I am the worst person to talk to about this. I literally can't care one way or the other. I'm not a good reference point.
>>8033765
>Do you refuse to take a stance on *anything* until research is provided?
And yeah, pretty much. I fucking hate it when people try to force me into making a decision that I don't understand. Fuck you and everything you stand for it you want me to make a decision on a weird issue I know literally nothing about. I don't even know if I'm actually circumcised or anything, I just trust the people who I'm told are my parents. If I was never circumcised and it was all a hoax, I'd have no way to know that. I've literally avoided porn my entire life so I have no idea what kind of foreskin other penises have.
I mean god damn, I'm an asexual. This couldn't be less interesting to me. I feel like my existence is enough to troll you here.
>>8033765
>the right to an intact body
Absolutely. I grow my fingernails long in protest of all the times I was told about hygiene growing up.
Okay that's it. Done. Sorry that I exist. I'm really truly sorry you had to meet me today. This wasn't fair to you and it isn't fair to anyone that cares about this issue. I'm sorry I engaged. I couldn't be any worse to talk to about this.
>>8033765
>Would you take a mathematician seriously if they wanted to exclude the number 4 from the rules of algebra that govern all other numbers?
When I asked myself this question around age 14, I accidentally invented the concept of base number systems because I could tell that the math worked.
>Circumcision increases the cleanliness of the penis, helping to prevent conditions such as Urinary Tract Infections in infants and Phimosis in men of all ages.
learn to wash your fucking dick
>>8027951
Circumcision should follow the rule of "if it's not broken, don't fix it".
>>8033200
>I have never seen anyone in real life care.
http://www.bloodstainedmen.com/
>>8033796
>But the physiological differences big are enough that I don't think the two compare at all.
All forms of female circumcision are illegal in the US, including those that are non-mutilating. So much as pricking the clitoral hood of a girl is illegal.
Meanwhile cutting off a boy's primary erogenous tissue is considered legal. It's hypocrisy.
Have you read Cold and Taylor's review "The Prepuce"?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1034.x/pdf
Give it a look. You might learn something.
>>8027951
>helping to prevent conditions such as Urinary Tract Infections in infants and Phimosis in men of all ages.
Phimosis isn't that big of a deal, I fixed mine in 6 months.
>>8034027
This, removing healthy tissue from an infant for no reason is cruel and wrong.
>>8034035
That is a good article.
Lmao all deez niggas talkin bout how a circumcised dick is missing nerve endings. Well shit bro let me tell you about all the times I've cum hands free.
>>8034227
A circumcised penis is factually missing nerve endings. A good explanation of the issue that I've heard is this. Whether the remaining parts of your penis are more or less sensitive, you have objectively lost sensitivity because you had tens of thousands (not sure on the exact number but that's probably right to an order of magnitude) of nerve endings that are no longer there. That's like saying the sensitivity of your hand as a whole is unaffected by having a finger chopped off. Sure the rest of your fingers might be just as sensitive as ever, but you are objectively and unarguably missing the sensations received through your amputated finger.
>>8028090
It just feels good
You get a huge benefit in pleasure from stimulation
If that isn't reason enough to keep the skin you have serious problem
>>8031015
>people make fun of him
oh not opinions of the average idiot are a woeful force we should bow down to
>>8034479
Lol, look at this idiot right here.
http://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(15)30172-7/abstract
>>8034572
You just missed the point of his post. That study is focusing on the sensitivity of the flesh that is left, not the flesh that is lost.
>>8034584
The idiots just don't stop coming.
>The highest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction.
>>8034588
Riddle me this, if I remove nerves from your body, are you missing nerves or not? I'm not making any claims other than that circumcision objectively removes sensory tissue from your body. The foreskin contains nerves, and it is removed, therefore the body has less nerves. If you can't recognize that, you might be mentally retarded.
Any non-medical pain on kids is retarded. Circumcision, FGM, that weird thing Hispanics do when they get their babies ear piercings. It just seems retarded and for no benefit, with the only defense being culture. If my culture was tattooing babies on the face, I'd look insane, but cutting dicks is fine? Also you risk infection and permanent dick fuckups like with any surgery. And then there's that "metzitzah b'peh" Jewish thing where they use their mouths and if they have oral herpes then the kids get herpes and since they're kids they die a lot.
>>8027951
holy crap i was just atlking about this the other day
they (doctors/scientists) are using human sacrifice to get rich
they blessed their business with the penis skins of a million babies
of course human sacrifice was outlawed 100s of years ago because it works
and my thread got deleted, pic
>>8035921
theres a lot more to the story: r eddit.com/r/reptiliandata/comments/3za3tn/
the way they dispose of umbillical cords
lobotomy (making a retard) as treatment [pic related]
aspartame
sweet n low conspiracy
mercury vaxx (double profit loop, causes illness treated by sugar pills)
planned parenthood
war industry machine
prison industry machine
armies only fighting versus villagers for 10,000 years
>mfw its terrible
>mfw even dog catchers dog neutering and dog kennels (dog prisons and dog castration and dog execution for money) to get rich
cognitive dissonance
the thread
>>8034698
nerves are like very long penises
cutting a nerve is like cutting off the tip of your penis
the shaft is still there but you wont feel dick
>>8037440
If I correctly interpret what you're trying to say, then yes, technically circumcision doesn't result in the removal of any whole nerves, but just the nerve endings, i.e. the parts that actually do the sensing. As you put it, you wont feel anything when the nerve endings are gone. My point still stands--there are sensations that would be received from the nerves in the foreskin that can no longer be received when circumcision is done.
And on a separate note, this thread seems to have largely died down. Thanks for all the input everyone. It's comforting to see that there are people who are opposed to circumcision, and I found the arguments put forth by pro-circ people to be interesting, if not necessarily convincing.
>>8029072
did you even read the OP to the end?
>>8037440
>these pun
Wow anon.
>>8029117
Yeah, tonsillectomies used to be way overdone. I have heard that it is better now. They should really only be removed if it is necessary, which is not very common.
>>8038815
>used to be way overdone
Honestly, that entire century was a nightmare of mass human experimentation. It seems like every new way to use a scalpel is accepted immediately.
>>8038830
My grandfather and his sister had their tonsils removed when they were children. It was a routine procedure, and they weren't even sick. My grandfather is against removing tonsils and other parts for no reason, but strangely he sees nothing wrong with routine circumcision.
>>8037829
their arguments are driven by cognitive dissonance, and nothing more
there is literally no actual benefit of circumcision, assuming you dont have a medical problem with your penis
>>8038888
literally cognitive dissonance explains it
this term encompasses the circumcision mentality 100%
any time someone argues circumcision, just tell them to look up the term
it will /thread every single debate because it is the sole reason for a pro-circumcision argument
>>8033348
What do you mean by half circumcised? Is it a loose circumcision?
>>8027971
I have mild phimosis (I can pull back foreskin fully when flaccid and a quarter of the way only when erect), but I'd much rather have that than be circumcised. I like the pleasurable feelings associated with uncut masturbation, and I also like a moist glans.
Cutties are just mad that they can't have this.
There is no ethical reason to allow circumcision to continue, and very little ad-hoc scientific evidence that its beneficial. Its barbaric, its enfringes on an individual's soverignity over their body and greatly reduces sexual pleasure. It should be banned.
>>8027951
If you want to get it done when you're older, fine but otherwise it just seems to be a very clear case of child abuse. It's one of those things that I can't quite understand how it's still legal.
>>8041680
I agree. Some people would say that a ban on circumcising infants would be against religious liberty, but we do not allow Muslims to circumcise girls. Even ritual pricking with a needle, which is less harmful than circumcision, is banned on girls.
I've found noticed that circumcision seems to be the "gay marriage" of the Jewish and Muslim communities. By that I mean when right-wing Christians complain about gay marriage their arguments are not about what's right but rather they argue from "tradition" and "deeply held values".
>>8041682
The interesting thing about FGM is that despite many forms of it being much worse than MGM, women who had it done to them will defend it in much the same way men who had MGM will.
>>8031000
>I'm sad over a fucking piece of skin
The foreskin isn't just "a piece of skin".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD2yW7AaZFw
>Ken McGrath, Senior Lecturer in Pathology at the Faculty of Health, Auckland University of Technology and Member of the New Zealand Institute of Medical Laboratory Scientists discusses his research into the neural anatomy of the human penis and the physical damages caused by circumcision.
>>8034588
That study has been refuted.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=55256
>>8041854
That was an informative video.
>>8037440
What?
>>8034588
>>8041862
>Morris and Krieger (2013) have argued that male circumcision does not impact adversely on sexual sensation, satisfaction, and/or function. In the present paper, it is argued that such a view is untenable. By selectively citing Morris’ own non-peer-reviewed letters and opinion pieces purporting to show flaws in studies reporting evidence of negative effects of circumcision, and by failing adequately to account for replies to these letters by the authors of the original research (and others), Morris and Krieger give an incomplete and misleading account of the available literature. Consequently, Morris and Krieger reach an implausible conclusion that is inconsistent with what is known about the anatomy and functions of the penile foreskin, and the likely effects of its surgical removal.
>>8029169
>>8031511
Aesthetic preferences, not purposes.
>>8031511
I was circumcised as a child and I think intact cocks look better.
I wish I weren't cut.
Even if it were true that circumcision reduced the chance of STDs or UTIs, that still is not a decision for the parent to make. It's a part of the infant's body and the parents don't (or shouldn't) have the right to remove it unless it is absolutely medically necessary.
If he wants to get circumcised when he's 18, then by all means allow it. Just don't force it onto children who are incapable of consenting.
>>8044229
I agree. We could stop breast cancer if we removed the breast buds from young girls. Most people understand that there is a good reason we don't do that.
>>8044229
Most UTIs in boys are due to people touching their penis with filthy hands, anyway. Babies don't have a fully developed immune system, and people are carrying loads of germs on their hands almost all the time.
When they go to change the baby's diaper, a lot of people don't wash their hands BEFORE doing it. This means introducing new bacteria right in the anogenital area.
And back in the old days, a lot of parents of intact sons were advised to mess around with the son's foreskin (forcibly retract it for example, which is now known to be dangerous and unnecessary). Doing that can create lots of tears in the penis's skin and membranes and that wuold provide a perfect pathway for pathogens.
>>8045251
Educating parents (and doctors) about how to properly care for their baby would be much more effective.
>>8028046
Personally I think an "anteater" looks better than a scar.
>>8046951
Uncut trap dicks are super cute.
>>8028862
>I have actually seen a circumcision done...They use anesthetic.
Of course cutting off any piece of your body without pain control is going to cause trauma.
I can totalyy understand them being called before a discipline committee - operating without anesthesia is unethical.
Think people - not every 'study' is believable or follows proper guidelines
>>8047607
Circumcision without anesthetic is still common. Many effective painkillers can't be used on infants, because they could kill them. Usually only a topical anesthetic is used, and it is not very effective.
>>8034572
>referring to flawed studies that defy logic
>>8033505
>I don't have an opinion about infant sacrifice to Moloch until everyone on earth has come to the same open-minded conclusion about it.
>>8033796
>Seriously I am the worst person to talk to about this. I literally can't care one way or the other.
Here's a thought, don't post at all, ever again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAHGFx95D80
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj_nYcumC0c
>>8027951
It reduces a 0.04% chance of HIV contraction from vaginal intercourse to 0.02% and only because of the fibroblasts being excised during circumcision.
Penile cancer is a very low possibility as well, moreso than getting appendicitis yet we don't remove the appendix upon birth.
Soap, antibiotics, steroid creams and stretching, If the latter fails to fix phimosis then a small dorsal slit to relieve pressure is adequate.
Removing the labia majora increases cleanliness in females and drastically reduces the chances of a UTI as well but we don't cut it off do we?
>>8049078
Not to mention most circumcisions are brought up for profit reasons and in places where neonatal circumcisions weren't billable they drastically reduced as doctors and hospitals didn't get paid and there were no baby dick skin flaps to turn into face cream and diabetes bandaids
>>8048248
>an opinion about infant sacrifice to Moloch until everyone on earth has come to the same open-minded conclusion about it
Yes, exactly. Arabs used to bury babies, so there really is a reason for us to take the concept seriously. We did, and we decided it was a hellish thing to do so we stopped doing it. If you've never grown up in a civilization built on the cultural idea of sacrificing infants to Moloch, you really have no room to talk. Between the two of us, I'd bet money on it being me that questioned the idea instead of blindly accepting it as a cultural norm. Think about the cultural impressionability of the average person and tell me what you think they'd do in an ancient culture. Don't bitch at me for expressing the logic of norms when neither of us is the kind to use it.
>>8049078
>It reduces a 0.04% chance of HIV contraction from vaginal intercourse to 0.02% and only because of the fibroblasts being excised during circumcision.
Even that is conjecture. No causal mechanism for circumcision to prevent HIV has ever been demonstrated.
It's simply conjecture based on statistical associations.
>>8049113
Supposedly cells in the inner foreskin are susceptible to intentionally introducing foreign cells to the body in a way that's meant to better our immune system but with HIV all that ends up happening is our body gets infected. Can't remember where I read this, may have been on CDC's website when I looked up statistics a long while ago.
>>8049849
That's the hypothesis, but there is no proof that this actually causes a higher chance of getting HIV.
It's conjecture and has not been proven. There is evidence suggesting that the hypothesis might be wrong.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17334373
>>8033200
>leddit
>>8033348
You're a fucking idiot who remains indifferent to obvious genital mutilation. Even partial circumcision is basically excising a large portion of the most sensory part of skin in the human body. And all that because of potential hygiene issues that are easy to avoid. You're a delusional moron if you believe that's justified.
Anyone claiming that uncuts are jealous, can you explain to me why they would be? I mean, uncut guys can just walk on down to a medical building that provides the service and get it done. Unless there's some wizardry I don't know about that's involved.
why stop at the foreskin? why not just cut the whole fucking thing off! no more HIV for you! Penile cancer? lol! no more annoying dick cleaning as well!
>>8027951
have you ever seen a picture of a 50yold cut and uncut penis? the head of the cut-one is all fucked up, dry and white, while uncut is intact, soft, alive...
>hiv
I take care pf myself so chance of hiv
>unretracted skin
you are talking about phimoses, phimosis =\= foreskin, i can retract mine the whooole way down
>phimosis
once again, not half of uncuts have phimosis
>>8027951
>3: Circumcision increases the cleanliness of the penis, helping to prevent conditions such as Urinary Tract Infections in infants and Phimosis in men of all ages.
Phimosis isn't a hygiene issue. It affects less than 1% of adults, which is in fact lower than the rate of botched circumcision at 1-3%, IIRC.
>>8053152
The doctors are probably educated enough.
But they can charge money for it.
I doubt an insurance company would pay for it here in the Netherlands.
Unless maybe because of religious reasons.
>>8055011
informed consent is a tricky thing when it comes to circumcision, typically you can, upon turning 18, sue the doctor or hospital that coerced your parents into the procedure. won't bring your nerves back though.
>>8055338
If they have to pay up they may refrain from circumsision in the future.
Or make it so that insurance companies only have to compensate if it's really needed
>>8027951
this wasn't implied to be a discussion thread
name your threads better in the future
>>8055395
And thus, the market handled it.
>>8027951
"There appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence. In 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while
in the remaining 10 countries it is higher. "
http://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf
>>8059167
without ears you can't hear
without teeth you can't chew
without foreskin you can't....get yeast infections ?
>>8059177
You can still hear without the outer edges of your ears
>>8030006
>implying soap doesn't make vagina dirtier
>totally missing the point of the comment
>>8059185
thats supposed to make me wanna get foreskin infections ?
>>8059213
...you do know ear infections exist right?
So you're kind of agreeing that shaving down the ear at birth should be a common practice.
>>8059177
The utility of the foreskin has been mentioned multiple times in this thread. The fact that something could get infected is clearly not a reason to have it removed.
Why you think that after so many years of evolution that a part of the penis is completely superfluous and men should not have the choice to keep it is beyond me
>>8059177
>without foreskin you can't...
https://www.youtube.com
/watch?v=D_dzeDvx2QA
Watch and learn, friend.
>>8059406
This is an informative video.
While I'm not particularly happy with it, I think it's fine if it's permitted for religious reasons. If nobody fights it, it'll eventually fade away as globalization sets it.
It should absolutely *not* be done without the consent of the parents however, as often occurs here in the US. That's just wrong.
I wasn't given a choice and I think it's important that any sons I eventually have ARE given a choice. If the doc goes and butchers him without the knowledge of my spouse or myself he's going to have a lawsuit on his hands.
>>8060571
I have thought about the religious argument as well. Female circumcision is illegal, even though some people see it as a religious practice. Many forms of it are more severe compared to male circumcision, but the ban extends to ritual pinpricks, which are less severe. People see female circumcision as barbaric, which it is, but they turn a blind eye to male circumcision because of its prevalence.
Personally I think that it should only be done if it is absolutely medically necessary, which is basically never.
Has no meaningful benefit. Most claims are distorted, exaggerated, or false outright.
Also, cutting off pieces of a person's body without their consent is a violation of basic human rights, and this is inarguable. Either we place value in the abstract concept of rights and operate as such, or we don't and admit we're tribal animals bound only by the most natural of natural laws. The only abhorrent act is in pretending. Shallow pretense is as disgusting as forced genital cutting. This does not hinge on a matter of perspective.
>>8060571
>While I'm not particularly happy with it, I think it's fine if it's permitted for religious reasons.
Would you also support a religious permitting of cutting off a girl's labia and clitoral hood?
>>8061463
Personally, I'm okay with anything from haircuts to limb removal and lobotomy, as long as it's part of an old cult, ie, established modern religion. That shields it from any scrutiny.
I'm going to castrate myself now, go get some vodka and barbiturates, etc. Real busy. I have a comet to board with my friends. Don't question my religion, you disgusting, myopic, BIGOTED FUCKHEAD.
