Opinions about circumsicion

[Elcura]

Trade circumcision to breast enhancement and it may be. Would I let my daughter get a boob job? hmmm.

Once she gets old enough she'll probably do it anyway >/

But it's a different topic altogether. One that will be equally as stupid.

[Plow]

Tyche I said before the only reason I didn't vote in the poll is that there's no "don't care" option.


What you choose to do is up to you, I just don't like to see decisions based on misinformation.



(particularly ones involving cocks and large amounts of pain inflicted to small children)

[Shuemue]

2:1 margin

Let's face it, the vast majority of posters here are American. Would you expect any other result?

[Ace-o-fire]

If i had to choice, i would go through with circumsicion.

just because i think it looks better.

[Tyche]

2:1 margin

Let's face it, the vast majority of posters here are American. Would you expect any other result?

That goes without saying, it's fairly obvious, however, not the point I was making. Despite the margin, the opposition of circumcision actually posting is far from a 2:1 margin. Which posed the question as to why that people who aren't circumcised feel the need to bring the topic up and defend it with such ferocity.

[Rocl]

Or they'll have a girl

Female children don't exist.

[Kuya]

I'm still rather confused why this site uses as its sources anti-circumcision sites and takes their quotes out of context without sead information having any scientific backing.

In the late 19th century circumcision became routine in the United States of America and elsewhere as a result of pronouncements in publications by various physicians, most notably Peter Remondino [12, 206, 462]. He recognized the various health benefits at the time, although he overemphasized the clinical significance of the foreskin in masturbation, a practice thought at the time to have adverse consequences [514].

Yea among, other little "benefits" that clearly had everything to do with the foreskin:

Thereafter circumcision was relentlessly
promoted as a necessity for hygiene as well as a treatment for
all sorts of illnesses, including masturbation, epilepsy,
elephantiasis, insanity, asthma, alcoholism, hernia, premature
ejaculation, penile cancer, cervical cancer, and virtually
every other identified ailment3

Its sources:
http://www.icgi.org/Downloads/FD2.pdf
http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xm ... ngitis.xml
http://www.britpro.com/default.asp?p=in ... _reference

Some of the purported benefits have stood the test of time, namely that circumcision prevents penile cancer, syphilis, balanoposthitis and phimosis

It offered no sources for this statement, and even funnier still, this is the first time i hear of circumcision preventing syphilis. I searched around but all i could see what unfounded hearsay. The jist of the data is that jewish people have less incidence of syphilis and they are circumsized so they concluded that it must be circumcision that prevents syphilis, without any real explination.

By the mid-1930s about half of male newborns in the USA were circumcised, and increased to about 90% in the 1950s and 1960s (after World War II when the Armed Forces demonstrated the health advantages [134, 431, 432, 548, 591

]).
I could not find most of the sources for this, but of what i did find was personal stories from soldiers fighting World War II where circumcision was made mandatory by some military organizations. The stories were interesting because what it all got down to was this:

America at the time was highly repressed when it came to sexuality, therefore sex was not discussed and much less did people actually discuss their sexual organs. Apperently it was a common thing for men to never retract their foreskin and never clean the inside, and most did not even know what circumcision meant. Mass circumcision started during World War II in America.
The source i found:http://www.circlist.com/rites/usa.html Warning: Site owner is kind of gay.

In the United Kingdom, a trend not to circumcise started in 1948 when Britain adopted a nationalized healthcare system and removed procedures in which it considered cost exceeded benefit. Circumcision also dropped rapidly across Europe after a (misguided) paper by Gairdner in 1949 [192].

The source: http://www.cirp.org/library/general/gairdner/

It is a curious fact that one of the operations most commonly performed in this country is also accorded the least critical consideration. In order to decide whether a child's foreskin should be ablated the normal anatomy and function of the structure at different ages should be understood; the danger of conserving the foreskin must then be weighed against the hazards of the operation, the mortality and after-effects of which must be known. Though tens of thousands of infants are circumcised each year in this country, nowhere are these essential data assembled. The intention of this paper is to marshal the facts required by those concerned with deciding the fate of the child's foreskin.

Gairdner's research is intersting, because as oppossed to Sir Jonathan Hutchinson, his work was far more professional and many of the things he said are also the very things that today's doctors now confirm. Hutchinson was also the one to conclude that circumcision prevents syphilis with no proper investigation of the statistical data he covered, and even suggested castration as a mean to prevent chronic masturbation. I find it questionable that this site considers Gairdner's work misguided and praises Hutchinson's work instead. But i still have more to read about this site before i can say anything conclusive. I will give it props for the abundance of information.

edit: oh ya, the page i read
http://www.circinfo.net/history_and_recent_trends.html

I'll do more tomorrow, there is too much information here.

[Beckwin]

I nominate Kuya to head the new Penis Studies department at BG University.

But seriously, it's cool that this interests you so much, but nothing can really take away from the simple concept that removing the foreskin prevents smegma and foreskin-tightness issues from developing, and by extension makes hygiene "easier". All anyone here is really kinda-sorta qualified to do is troll the internet to compare articles about the actual medical ramifications; not one of us can really solve the issue scientifically and definitively.

[Kuya]

I nominate Kuya to head the new Penis Studies department at BG University.

But seriously, it's cool that this interests you so much, but nothing can really take away from the simple concept that removing the foreskin prevents smegma and foreskin-tightness issues from developing, and by extension makes hygiene "easier". All anyone here is really kinda-sorta qualified to do is troll the internet to compare articles about the actual medical ramifications; not one of us can really solve the issue scientifically and definitively.

Yes i have noticed that using academic standards in debates in a videogame forum is a kin to using a metallic mallet on a group of ants, but i have no pretention of solving the issue. Also i can't sort of help but respond when someone tries to come back with a counter argument, it's a habit of mine.

But yes, i supose analising that site is rather pointless about now.

[Plow]

I have one more thing to add to this thread.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nhizo7KrZrw

[cr4ter]

Voted for just because it looks better, and as far as pain, I don't remember a damn thing about it, being as I was right out of the womb.


*+points to me for getting into this so late*

[clover]

has anyone noticed that circumcision is spelled wrong in the title of this thread?

[Khamsin]

2:1 margin

Let's face it, the vast majority of posters here are American. Would you expect any other result?

Not only just Americans, but circumcised Americans who are satisfied with the choice their parents made for them.

Or they'll have a girl

I don't see the female circumsicion thread being this fun.

Besides, female circumcision is much less popular than male circumcision, at least here. In some areas, such as in Africa, it's more common than male circumcision, however. But then, there are less medical and aesthetical benefits to female circumcision, too, and so is subject to more controversy.

Trade circumcision to breast enhancement and it may be. Would I let my daughter get a boob job? hmmm.

Boob jobs are primarily aesthetic anyway. The only times anyone gets one for medical reasons are for a reduction in some cases, and I'm not even sure that has any real medical value.