Current Events > To circumcise or not?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Dude I'm done arguing with you. All I'm saying is it shouldn't be the parents decision it should be the kids. Consent still matters.

Zonbei posted...

Im not advocating for removing peoples bodily autonomy. Thats already a thing we have all agreed is okay when it comes to babies and children, a long time ago. Im advocating for parents being able to make medical decisions for their children, and pointing out there are benefits to the medical procedure because people said there arent.

feel free to start listening at any time.

jesus fuckin christ

This topic is really fucking stupid.

Zonbei posted...

Maybe, although I dont see any actual evidence of that.

Lol?

The draft only consulted pro-circumcision groups.

Nirvanas_Nox posted...

Sorry but cut men can produce smegma.

It is significantly more common in uncut men, like way more, and many cut men never have to deal with it unless they literally dont shower at all. I certainly never have. At the very least, the Wikipedia article (yes I am being lazy here) specifically denotes it as being found under the foreskin. While sure, any penis produces the stuff that becomes smegma, sebum and skin cells and such, its generally only an issue with uncut penises.

Cannot stress enough that mostly Ive been saying Im happy with being circumcised and this is my experience, combined with having heard other experiences from people I know.

DrizztLink posted...

Whole lotta words to say "I'm upset you asked for a source and I'm going to blame you for it."

You didnt ask for a source, Ars did, which is who Im referring to. Im not blaming you for asking, Im blaming you for not shutting up about it after I explained why Im not going to bother tracking them down again.

Zonbei posted...

I mean. If you washed your dick and didnt pull the foreskin back and wash under it, (I know its not really under but you know what I mean), then youre not really washing it. Whereas that extra bit of attention isnt necessary when youre circumcised.

its a fact that not every human being naturally knows how to wash every part of their body, I dunno what to tell you there. Its also a fact men exist that dont wash their dicks correctly, including the main issue being not washing their uncircumcised dick correctly. My strongest source there is that I know women who have complained of this very issue with uncircumcised men.

but also there is the literal existence of the word Smegma. A word which refers to buildup under the foreskin that doesnt exist in circumcised men.

so let me put it another way: Ive literally never had to clean smegma and Im happy that way.

There are a lot of little creases and places on our bodies that can get gross if not cleaned properly. Why is it literally JUST for the foreskin (suggesting it for ANY other part on the body would be met with shocked gasps from every single person in the hospital room) that the answer is "eh just cut it off"?

Zonbei posted...

Havent done that once. Ive said circumcision can lower the incidence of STI spread as compared to non circumcised people.

Look at you doing that right after you said you have never done it.

Tanthalas posted...

Lol?

The draft only consulted pro-circumcision groups.

I am annoyed. I said I wasnt going to do any more googling for you people. But my desire to correct people who wont shut the fuck up while being wrong is too strong.

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/risk/MC-HISA-Public-Comments-and-Responses.pdf

Zonbei posted...

not washing their uncircumcised dick correctly.

Also, after reading the rebuttal, the term uncircumcised carries with it a negative conotation and implies that circumcised is the positive form, from now on, please refrain from using the term and instead use formally correct or neutral terms such as "intact" or "natural".

Skyscraper101 posted...

There are a lot of little creases and places on our bodies that can get gross if not cleaned properly. Why is it literally JUST for the foreskin (suggesting it for ANY other part on the body would be met with shocked gasps from every single person in the hospital room) that the answer is "eh just cut it off"?

Because penile cancer is an issue and so are stis. Thats basically the reason. Even the religious people, it originally started as a health thing that was written into religion (like many other religious laws.) of course now they have dumber reasons for supporting it. But it doesnt change that the health benefits exist. If you think I wouldnt be for other useful elective procedures, youre wrong. Id be all for taking appendixes out early if it was deemed safe and medically useful. If you could remove wisdom teeth as a baby Id say do it. There are tons of procedures done on other parts of the body. Cleft lips are corrected even when they wont actually be a medical issue. Theres no contradiction here for me, sorry.

Tanthalas posted...

Also, after reading the rebuttal, the term uncircumcised carries with it a negative conotation and implies that circumcised is the positive form, from now on, please refrain from using the term and instead use formally correct or neutral terms such as "intact" or "natural".

Eat me

ArsGoetia posted...

for things that dont matter in developed nations

In truth it doesn't even matter in underdeveloped nations.

Tanthalas posted...

Look at you doing that right after you said you have never done it.

bro what on earth are you talking about. Im beginning to think you arent even reading your OWN messages. I still havent directly compared rates of STDS in varying regions and said this is all due to circumcision. Which you may remember is what that was referring to.

Zonbei posted...

I am annoyed. I said I wasnt going to do any more googling for you people. But my desire to correct people who wont shut the fuck up while being wrong is too strong.

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/risk/MC-HISA-Public-Comments-and-Responses.pdf

First: please point out the part where the CDC actually talks about consulting with organizations that are against circumcision, because I couldn't find it.

Second: That document is literally just the CDC stamping their feet and ignoring all criticisms.

Tanthalas posted...

First: please point out the part where the CDC actually talks about consulting with organizations that are against circumcision, because I couldn't find it.

Second: That document is literally just the CDC stamping their feet and ignoring all criticisms.

One sec, do you.. you think that when researching the health implications of something, the CDC consults with organizations that are against that thing for ethics reasons? Because thats no thats not how anything works. Why would it work that way. They didnt consult with pro-circumcision organizations either. Given those would all just be like religious groups.

Well, cant argue against you claiming that the document says nothing and an organization is just stamping its feet! I mean except pointing out that they literally provide where you can find evidence summaries and supporting documents. And that anyone who actually read it could easily see youre full of shit and they are very comprehensively addressing comments.

Zonbei posted...

bro what on earth are you talking about. Im beginning to think you arent even reading your OWN messages. I still havent directly compared rates of STDS in varying regions and said this is all due to circumcision. Which you may remember is what that was referring to.

Nuh-uh, you don't get to change your claim now. This is your original comment:

Zonbei posted... Oh we are doing the semantics game. Fun. Medical consensus is that the benefits exist. Clearly the statistical evidence (whether that be in controlled studies or in general) is there. My usages of significantly and slightly were not meant to be taken in the sense you are taking them. You cant directly compare rates of STDS and say oh its because of circumcision, and anyone who thinks you can isnt thinking very hard.

Several times now you have said that circumcision lowers STDs and cancer, you can't now try to weasel yourself out of it by claiming "I've never said it was all because of circumcision!"

Zonbei posted...

One sec, do you.. you think that when researching the health implications of something, the CDC consults with organizations that are against that thing for ethics reasons? Because thats no thats not how anything works. Why would it work that way. They didnt consult with pro-circumcision organizations either. Given those would all just be like religious groups.

Well, cant argue against you claiming that the document says nothing and an organization is just stamping its feet! I mean except pointing out that they literally provide where you can find evidence summaries and supporting documents. And that anyone who actually read it could easily see youre full of shit and they are very comprehensively addressing comments.

Oh there you go again, trying to shift the argument to something else to weasel yourself out of it.

1. There are plenty of organizations that are against circumcision because there is no real scientific proof that it provides any real benefits. Yet the CDC somehow managed to not consult any of them. This isn't an ethics thing.
2. Somehow the CDC only consulted with organizations that defend circumcision and only one lonely doctor in the whole group had ever published an article against the procedure.

The CDC's rebuttal doesn't address that at all (or if it did, I didn't find it, which is why I'm asking you to point out where this happened), yet you linked to that rebuttal as if it did.

Holy shit, the pro-mutilation side is once again talking about the penis cancer epidemic and advocating for not washing dicks or using condoms.

Why do they always do this? What's next? Some guy coming in talking about how he wants people to circumcise their children because they want the kids to have more attractive dicks again?

Tanthalas posted...

Nuh-uh, you don't get to change your claim now. This is your original comment:

Several times now you have said that circumcision lowers STDs and cancer, you can't now try to weasel yourself out of it by claiming "I've never said it was all because of circumcision!"

You are WILDLY confused. I have in fact said it lowers STD and cancer.. because it does. I have never said I didnt. The comment you just posted doesnt show me saying I didnt.

The claim was made that if it lowered the rates of those things, why arent the overall rates in countries without circumcision higher than the US. I pointed out that it doesnt work that way. You cant directly compare rates of STIs (from context: in different countries, overall, the thing the person I was responding to was doing) and say anything is due to circumcision because there are many other factors.

then you went yet you keep doing that. Because apparently youre lost. I pointed out u didnt. Now youve come back to make the exact same mistake again because youve somehow conflated lowering std occurence rates with comparing overall std rates between countries.

I even did the math for you. 100-2 vs 10-0 the 2 is still the bigger decrease even though the end result, the std rate, is higher. Somehow you still got confused.

Now you wont shut up about it and hilariously think Im changing my claim when Ive been consistent.

Enclave posted...

Holy shit, the pro-mutilation side is once again talking about the penis cancer epidemic and advocating for not washing dicks or using condoms.

Why do they always do this? What's next? Some guy coming in talking about how he wants people to circumcise their children because they want the kids to have more attractive dicks again?

No one is talking about a penis cancer epidemic. Just the actual fact that circumcision reduces the change of penile cancer. Those are not the same thing. You are employing a bad faith false equivalency. Similarly, literally no one has advocated for not washing dicks and not using condoms. You are straight up lying.

It becomes more apparent youre just trying to be inflammatory in your next paragraph where you insanely start talking about kids and attraction, because literally what the hell is wrong with you? What kind of shit is going on in your head that your mind made that fucking bananas leap in logic?

Tanthalas posted...

Oh there you go again, trying to shift the argument to something else to weasel yourself out of it.

1. There are plenty of organizations that are against circumcision because there is no real scientific proof that it provides any real benefits. Yet the CDC somehow managed to not consult any of them. This isn't an ethics thing.
2. Somehow the CDC only consulted with organizations that defend circumcision and only one lonely doctor in the whole group had ever published an article against the procedure.
The CDC's rebuttal doesn't address that at all (or if it did, I didn't find it, which is why I'm asking you to point out where this happened), yet you linked to that rebuttal as if it did.

Again, I am wildly confused as to what scientific research organizations you think are against circumcision that the CDC should have consulted and didnt.

if by consulted with organizations that defend circumcision you mean gathered data from researchers and doctors that determined with the scientific method that its minorly beneficial with negligible downsides, then I can see why youd be confused that they didnt consult with your imaginary organizations.

usually when a bunch of scientists use the scientific method to determine a thing and its fairly easy to determine, they tend to come to the same conclusions. If they dont, then, you know, there isnt a consensus and a recommendation wouldnt be made. If they didnt all agree, and thus are defending circumcision in your mind, the entire thing youre whining about would never have existed to begin with for you to question it.

as for where its pointed out, its sort of sprinkled through the whole thing where they repeatedly talk about the rigorous peer reviewed scientific process they reviewed to come to this conclusion, along with the supporting evidence and evidence summaries.

hope that helps.

Zonbei posted...

The claim was made that if it lowered the rates of those things, why arent the overall rates in countries without circumcision higher than the US. I pointed out that it doesnt work that way. You cant directly compare rates of STIs (from context: in different countries, overall, the thing the person I was responding to was doing) and say anything is due to circumcision because there are many other factors.

Yet, you keep bringing up studies conducted in Africa to support your point. When the comparison doesn't suit you, you say you can't do it, but when it does, it's suddenly ok to use.

Anyone notice that dude said that cut men can't produce smegma and when I said they actually can he contradicted himself by saying that they can but it's at a lower rate then uncut men. Like which is it dude can they or can't they?

Just a general rule of thumb, but specialists are usually going to lean towards whatever their field is. I haven't ever gone to a surgeon and have them not suggest a surgical solution, for example.

Tanthalas posted...

Yet, you keep bringing up studies conducted in Africa to support your point. When the comparison doesn't suit you, you say you can't do it, but when it does, it's suddenly ok to use.

I brought up a study conducted in Africa literally one time because someone said why doesnt circumcision in Africa lower HIV rates there and the study showed that it does. Which was in support of the thing I said. Are you.. are you okay? You seem extremely confused.

Me bringing up studies in Africa wouldnt even be counter to what I said, unless I was using them to compare the rate of stis in Africa to the UK and say see, they circumcised so their rates are lower. Which I wouldnt. Because theyre not lower. Which proves my entire point. Are you lost?

Zonbei posted...

if by consulted with organizations that defend circumcision you mean gathered data from researchers and doctors that determined with the scientific method that its minorly beneficial with negligible downsides, then I can see why youd be confused that they didnt consult with your imaginary organizations.

And again, they consulted with only ONE doctor that had ever published a study against circumcision, and the rest were organizations that vouch for circumcision.

Zonbei posted...

as for where its pointed out, its sort of sprinkled through the whole thing

Aka, they never actually addressed the criticism, they just spouted platitudes.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


That's because they are disturbing. It's a horrible practice.

Zonbei posted...

No one is talking about a penis cancer epidemic. Just the actual fact that circumcision reduces the change of penile cancer. Those are not the same thing. You are employing a bad faith false equivalency. Similarly, literally no one has advocated for not washing dicks and not using condoms. You are straight up lying.

It becomes more apparent youre just trying to be inflammatory in your next paragraph where you insanely start talking about kids and attraction, because literally what the hell is wrong with you? What kind of shit is going on in your head that your mind made that fucking bananas leap in logic?

Dude, come on, this discussion has happened on this board so many damn times and the exact same clown arguments always come up as excuses to do an unnecessary cosmetic surgery on infants who cannot give consent.

Also the reference to the guy who wanted parents to circumcise their kids because they find it more attractive? Literally happened on this board. The pro-circumcision side are god damn ridiculous on this subject.

Nirvanas_Nox posted...

Anyone notice that dude said that cut men can't produce smegma and when I said they actually can he contradicted himself by saying that they can but it's at a lower rate then uncut men. Like which is it dude can they or can't they?

me: but also there is the literal existence of the word Smegma. A word which refers to buildup under the foreskin that doesnt exist in circumcised men.

so let me put it another way: Ive literally never had to clean smegma and Im happy that way.

the foreskin doesnt exist in circumcised men. The foreskin. not smegma. The foreskin.

you pointed out smegma can happen in uncut men, and thus doesnt technically refer to solely buildup under the foreskin. I conceded that point, as it didnt really change mine. Welcome to an argument with an actual person instead of a brick wall that must argue every single thing they ever say to the death rather than ever concede an inch.

Zonbei posted...

I brought up a study conducted in Africa literally one time because someone said why doesnt circumcision in Africa lower HIV rates there and the study showed that it does. Which was in support of the thing I said. Are you.. are you okay? You seem extremely confused.

Me bringing up studies in Africa wouldnt even be counter to what I said, unless I was using them to compare the rate of stis in Africa to the UK and say see, they circumcised so their rates are lower. Which I wouldnt. Because theyre not lower. Which proves my entire point. Are you lost?

It is a counter, because you use studies conducted in Africa when it suits your argument, and completely ignore data from other places when it doesn't suit your argument.

You can't go "oh those don't count because a lot of different things can affect it in Europe" but then go "See! Circumcision definitely has a positive effect in Africa!".

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

This is what I wanted to know. I actually asked each OBGYN if I can be in the surgery room should we opt for the circumcision, and the answer was no. From my online research, there are three main methods for pain- ones do nothing, another is an injection, and the last is a cream; the hospital were choosing to deliver at is the cream apparently.

Tanthalas posted...

And again, they consulted with only ONE doctor that had ever published a study against circumcision, and the rest were organizations that vouch for circumcision.

Aka, they never actually addressed the criticism, they just spouted platitudes.

No, there are zero platitudes and a bunch of actual points and referrals to actual evidence. Are you just hoping nobody else is going to bother to read it? Or do you not know what a platitude is?

Hey; lets do a fun thing! Prove they only consulted with one doctor who had published a study against circumcision, and THEN prove there were other reputable doctors they should have consulted with but didnt who had published peer reviewed studies against circumcision.
Or dont, and invalidate your own prior complaints about unsourced claims. I dont really care which.

Me saying it was sprinkled was tongue in cheek because its literally constantly addressed starting in response 1, btw. Which youd know if you actually read it.

IdiotMachine posted...

This is what I wanted to know. I actually asked each OBGYN if I can be in the surgery room should we opt for the circumcision, and the answer was no. From my online research, there are three main methods for pain- ones do nothing, another is an injection, and the last is a cream; the hospital were choosing to deliver at is the cream apparently.

The heart of the problem is that the people whose livelihood is based upon doing these procedures are of course going to tell you that it's a great easy painless procedure because how else are they going to get people to sign up for it.

If you want an actual opinion ask your family doctor or pediatrician who don't offer the service.

congrats on the son, fwiw

Tanthalas posted...

It is a counter, because you use studies conducted in Africa when it suits your argument, and completely ignore data from other places when it doesn't suit your argument.

You can't go "oh those don't count because a lot of different things can affect it in Europe" but then go "See! Circumcision definitely has a positive effect in Africa!".

I have at no point said those dont count because a lot of different things can affect it in Europe. The comment about comparing rates and the comment about Africa were completely different contexts and actually
support the exact same conclusion anyways. You are WILDLY confused.

Africa having circumcision doesnt make its rate lower than Europe because thats not how that works. Europe not having circumcision but having a lower rate of STI doesnt mean circumcision isnt effective at all, because thats not how that works. These are the same exact statement applied to different situations. The overall rate in both places is affected by other factors. I dont understand why you arent grasping this.

The entire point is you cant directly compare overall numbers of STI infection between countries and draw a conclusion about circumcision. which has FUCK ALL to do with whether you can use studies about other countries to prove OTHER THINGS.

How youve somehow concluded that is beyond me.

IdiotMachine posted...

This is what I wanted to know. I actually asked each OBGYN if I can be in the surgery room should we opt for the circumcision, and the answer was no. From my online research, there are three main methods for pain- ones do nothing, another is an injection, and the last is a cream; the hospital were choosing to deliver at is the cream apparently.

I find it unlikely it doesnt cause any pain, but Im not an expert in newborns. They certainly arent going to remember it though.

From what Ive read, some anesthetics can increase the risk of complications. But if thats why theyre saying they arent needed, they should be upfront and clear about that.

Enclave posted...

Dude, come on, this discussion has happened on this board so many damn times and the exact same clown arguments always come up as excuses to do an unnecessary cosmetic surgery on infants who cannot give consent.

Also the reference to the guy who wanted parents to circumcise their kids because they find it more attractive? Literally happened on this board. The pro-circumcision side are god damn ridiculous on this subject.

It's fucking weird

and not the good kind of weird

Skyscraper101 posted...

It is crazy to me that Americans know:

1. Nobody else does this except for religion

2. It was a plan hatched by a cereal man to stop people from jerking it

3. The hospital takes that foreskins and sells it. You don't even get a cut of that either. In fact, you are paying thrm. You are literally paying them to give them something they are then going to make more money off.

And they still are in favor of this. It is like stockholm syndrome to a cereal man's ghost. So weird.

What do you expect from the country with the biggest tipping culture heh

boomgetchopped3 posted...

They kind of made it seem like a non choice at the hospital. The nurse was just like we have to take him for circumcision, I assume were doing that right? Im circumcised so I just went along with it. I do question it in hindsight tho.

username makes post.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/4/40f50cbd.jpg

Yes. have you seen what an uncircumsised dick looks like? It's the stuff of horror movies.

Circumcisions: 10% off + tip

BobanMarjanovic posted...

Yes. have you seen what an uncircumsised dick looks like? It's the stuff of horror movies.

Thats just cultural. I have legitimately clicked some porn away because of uncircumcised penises, it looks like gore to me. Not trying to insult anyone with that but it makes me extremely uncomfortable its so normal. Its like normalizing an amputee fetish or something, you can just see where they cut it.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

okay Bigot

BobanMarjanovic posted...

Yes. have you seen what an uncircumsised dick looks like? It's the stuff of horror movies.

I see it everytime I look down. It's fine. Yours looks horrifying to me. Everyone is used to what they have. To me it looks normal. Because it is. That's literally what humans are supposed to look like

You only think yours looks good cause it's what you are used to