If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Anti-circumcision Amazon reviewers tipped off about book on AIDS, cut in with attacks on the author, having only read snippets of the book. You have been fore-warned   (slate.com) divider line 156
    More: Asinine, aides, Amazon, circumcisions, Daniel Halperin, Fresh Air, Penguin Press, AIDS epidemic, sexual function  
•       •       •

4892 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Sep 2012 at 3:38 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



156 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-25 04:13:38 AM

The more you eat the more you fart: Mock26: The more you eat the more you fart: Mock26: I, for one, am glad to have a smooth head. All the ladies I have been with have enjoyed it. And, a few of them said that they hated performing oral on someone who was not circumcised.

As for performing it on infants, if the little farkers do not want it then they should learn to speak up a hell of a lot earlier than they normally do. What a bunch of lazy brats.

how about we just start cutting off everyone's pinky finger too while we're at it. Its not like it's really useful for anything, and people that will go on to play the piano will learn to compensate for the missing finger.

Same thing.

You might want to take your humor meter in for a check up. It seems to be broken. Personally, I thought the part of about infants being lazy for not yet being able to talk (at the assumed age of several weeks or months, when circumcisions are normally performed) would have been a dead give away. And if not, then certainly mocking an infant for not yet being able to speak should have clued you in to the joke.

yeah...been up for 24+ hours (sick kid)...I completely overlooked that. sorry lol.


No worries. It is all good. I just hope I did not come off as an asshole in my response.
 
2012-09-25 04:14:32 AM

ArcadianRefugee: RodneyToady: Because it's an unnecessary procedure that carries risk of damaging the penis? Because it reduces sensation? Because it's performed on infants who, when older, should be able to make the decision to undergo the procedure?

FTFA: "Although tens of thousands of men who were circumcised as adults and were studied in several large-scale clinical trials (and in a Slate series) reported no loss-and in many cases an increase-in sexual pleasure and function"




Yes, but WHY were they circumcised? For religious reason's or medical? Because I'm pretty damn sure that if there was something wrong with my penis and I needed a circumcision to correct it, sex after surgery would feel a heck of a lot better.

Also, there's a serious risk of response bias in any study that asks adult men who chose to be circumcised whether they enjoyed sex more. In all likely hood, there was little difference, or perhaps simply the new sensation of having no foreskin is stimulating.
 
2012-09-25 04:14:46 AM

keytronic: If you're happy with your penis, cut or not, I'm happy for you.

That being said, thank the lord that despite being born in Canada, my father was European and I have an un-altered penis.


I first started reading that and in my head I started singing,

"if you're happy with your penis, cut its head!"
 
2012-09-25 04:14:50 AM
not at all.
 
2012-09-25 04:18:20 AM

keytronic: Also, there's a serious risk of response bias in any study that asks adult men who chose to be circumcised whether they enjoyed sex more. In all likely hood, there was little difference, or perhaps simply the new sensation of having no foreskin is stimulating.


As opposed to the arbitrary feelings of men who don't recall what their peeners felt like before they had them chopped at age 0.01 and a bunch of people who think it's icky said it was better?

Point being, male circumcision =/= female clitoral circumcision, no matter how many people scream that it is. Repeatedly. Despite all evidence to the contrary.
 
2012-09-25 04:26:47 AM
Somebody should do a chart on the recommendations of the US health board wrt circumcision and the state of the economy. I bet that you'd find a correlation. Nifty doctors know where the extra percent or so in their income comes from when times are tough.
 
2012-09-25 04:31:56 AM

ArcadianRefugee: keytronic: Also, there's a serious risk of response bias in any study that asks adult men who chose to be circumcised whether they enjoyed sex more. In all likely hood, there was little difference, or perhaps simply the new sensation of having no foreskin is stimulating.

As opposed to the arbitrary feelings of men who don't recall what their peeners felt like before they had them chopped at age 0.01 and a bunch of people who think it's icky said it was better?

Point being, male circumcision =/= female clitoral circumcision, no matter how many people scream that it is. Repeatedly. Despite all evidence to the contrary.



You know, the of the circumcised on these threads is so confrontational....pardon me if I get a little Freudian here, but are we overcompensating perhaps?
 
2012-09-25 04:34:34 AM
 
2012-09-25 04:35:18 AM

GAT_00: I really don't get why people are so farking pissed about circumcision. I mean, my dick got chopped, and I give zero farks about it. I don't feel mutilated or betrayed or anything like that. Plus there's evidence that suggests the author is right, that circumcision does reduce AIDS transmission. So why do people get so mad about it?


I'm with you. There are so many things done to children that are horrific and totally socially acceptable that I just can't muster anything beyond a "meh" on this issue. To wit- my parents had me cut- but they didn't beat me, or indoctrinate me with religion or racism, so I'm counting them several thousand points ahead on the scoreboard.
 
2012-09-25 04:49:43 AM
Cut it or don't - but do it at the age of 18.
 
2012-09-25 04:49:48 AM
This is like the reviews of that "totally about Scientology, but not about Scientology" movie The Master.
 
2012-09-25 04:51:51 AM
If the research is sound, then the medical benefits to the procedure outweigh the risks. I'm not really seeing the cause for concern here. To add once again, the only similarity to female circumcision is a sharp instrument being used on one's naughty bits. That's it. The health risks are nowhere near comparable. Not with the current technologies and practices being used in professional medical settings. So where does the concern come from then? That an infant wasn't allowed to grow and make the determination for themself? That's not how society works, and it's not necessarily a good idea. A child is not given the right to be free from the choices made by their parents until reaching the age of majority unless those choices present a direct threat to that child's life and well being (neglect, abuse, servitude, etc.)

Someone brought up the why not strawman of taking out an infant's tonsils and appendix. What would be the benefit/risk analysis of that scenario? Would it be any different than suggesting that parents allow their children to decide whether or not to be vaccinated?

Look, I'm sorry if your parents exercised control over a part of your life and anatomy before you were capable of making an informed decision about it and you're upset. That's not a justifiable argument to label this procedure barbaric though.
 
2012-09-25 05:04:56 AM

GAT_00: So any medical procedure performed on children shouldn't be done because there are risks?


Unless there are clear net benefits (i.e. benefits - risks) no medical procedure should be performed on children. Period.

Also any potential benefits from circumcision come well after the male is old enough to make his own medical decisions, so doing it at birth is unwarranted even if the procedure is eventually beneficial, just like performing a vasectomy on an infant would be unwarranted.
 
2012-09-25 05:05:52 AM

Loaded Six String: If the research is sound, then the medical benefits to the procedure outweigh the risks


For adults, maybe (it depends strongly on the circumstances of the adult life). For infants and children that's an outright lie.
 
2012-09-25 05:06:29 AM

Summercat: And the science showing all the health reasons for removing it


What health benefits do infants receive from this procedure?
 
2012-09-25 05:08:21 AM

GAT_00: So you're just going to ignore any medical arguments in favor of circumcision, because you don't like them, while making medical arguments about why it shouldn't be legal.


And you're just going to ignore the vastly different circumstances between an adult male in Africa and an infant in the US.

I have no problem adults getting circumcisions, and if I was living in Africa I'd seriously consider one. But just like vaccines we should probably only give them to at-risk populations, not everyone of all ages worldwide.
 
2012-09-25 05:14:48 AM

profplump: Loaded Six String: If the research is sound, then the medical benefits to the procedure outweigh the risks

For adults, maybe (it depends strongly on the circumstances of the adult life). For infants and children that's an outright lie.


You're discounting the risk of infection for the roughly 18 years it takes for that infant to reach adulthood, not to mention the risk of std's cropping up around years 14 and up. If the circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV, I don't see how it would not also reduce the risk of contracting chlamydia, herpes, syphilis, etc.

/No one likes smegma, japanese porn comics should be ashamed for saying so.
 
2012-09-25 05:22:43 AM

GAT_00: I really don't get why people are so farking pissed about circumcision. I mean, my dick got chopped, and I give zero farks about it. I don't feel mutilated or betrayed or anything like that. Plus there's evidence that suggests the author is right, that circumcision does reduce AIDS transmission. So why do people get so mad about it?


This is the struggle of their generation. Previous generations have had to struggle through the great depression/starvation, being forced to fight in wars, the civil rights movement, Dukakis in a tank, the cold war, etc. A minuscule portion of circumcised people have had issues due to their personal doctor screwing up, so clearly the problem isn't with the individual physician but the entire practice. Real struggles are difficult and quite inconvenient so in order that they don't have to actually give up their cushy lifestyle they have latched onto the anti-circumcision crusade. All they have to do is ignore facts and realities in the real world, then post on the internet and sign petitions to annoy normal people. Then they get to join in on a giant circle jerk wherein they delude themselves into believing they have done their 'part' just like previous generations. For another example see the Kony 2012 retards on facebook.
 
2012-09-25 05:44:46 AM

profplump: Also any potential benefits from circumcision come well after the male is old enough to make his own medical decisions,


Baby skin heals faster, better and with less scarring than adult skin, for one. Also, what about the simple benefit of not having to remember the pain? I know I'm personally thankful.
 
2012-09-25 06:35:17 AM
I am snipped and both of my sons are as well. I feel like it introduced them to several very important life lessons:

1. Life isn't fair.
2. You will do whatever your parents tell you. Get a foreskin when you work for it, young man.
3. Jews run the system
4. Bottom line is the majority of women prefer snipped. Taxes must be paid by everyone.

/bottom line is women like snipped, and it provides some health benefits.
 
2012-09-25 06:37:42 AM

Z-clipped: profplump: Also any potential benefits from circumcision come well after the male is old enough to make his own medical decisions,

Baby skin heals faster, better and with less scarring than adult skin, for one. Also, what about the simple benefit of not having to remember the pain? I know I'm personally thankful.


So it's acceptable to do extremely painful things to infants (and until very recently even in the United States without anesthetic) because they won't remember it later?

There is no compelling medical need to perform routine infant circumcision. That you think it's all well and good to inflict excruciating pain on a newborn because they won't remember it is very, very disturbing.
 
2012-09-25 06:59:39 AM

RodneyToady: Because it's an unnecessary procedure that carries risk of damaging the penis? Because it reduces sensation? Because it's performed on infants who, when older, should be able to make the decision to undergo the procedure?

/circumcised, would have preferred not


Your mom wasn't complaining about the reduced sensation.
 
2012-09-25 07:48:50 AM
What the hell has to happen to someone to turn them into a passionate foreskin purist? Of all the farking causes to obsess about, they picked infant penis.
 
2012-09-25 08:10:24 AM

GAT_00: I really don't get why people are so farking pissed about circumcision. I mean, my dick got chopped, and I give zero farks about it. I don't feel mutilated or betrayed or anything like that. Plus there's evidence that suggests the author is right, that circumcision does reduce AIDS transmission. So why do people get so mad about it?


cuz it's an unnecessary, irreversible, procedure that carries risk. Granted, the risk is low (about1-2% of the time resulting in complications), but given the serverity of some complications, the ethical thing would be to let the kid grow to the age of maturity when he can decide for himself whether to do it or not.
 
2012-09-25 08:37:26 AM

GAT_00: RodneyToady: If circumcision was that important of a medical thing, it would be impressed upon people pretty much the world over. It's not

Which would of course by why there's not a medical program to encourage circumcisions on the entire continent of Africa.


There are also programs in favor of the execution of gays. They also think raping virgins cures you of AIDS. And, of course, they think circumcision is okay when they do it to young girls.

A medical wonderland, Africa is not.
 
2012-09-25 08:51:28 AM
I was circumcised. I don't have any remorse or anger towards my parents about it. That said, when my son was born we opted to let him keep his foreskin. He seemed quite attached to it.
 
2012-09-25 08:54:20 AM

heili skrimsli: So it's acceptable to do extremely painful things to infants (and until very recently even in the United States without anesthetic) because they won't remember it later?


I think that if I were going to be circumcised (which I am, and glad of it), I'd rather it be done when I was an infant than when I was 18.

There is no compelling medical need to perform routine infant circumcision.

We've already established that there are medical benefits to the process. Whether they are compelling is certainly up for debate. I don't think you're correct in dismissing that debate out of hand. Not to imply that I'm interested in having said debate, since as I've already said, my feeling on this matter are not particularly strong either way.

That you think it's all well and good to inflict excruciating pain on a newborn because they won't remember it is very, very disturbing.

I think you're being histrionic about something that is way down the ladder on the list of concern regarding children, and what's done to them without their permission. Seriously, if you're willing to leave things like nutrition, homeschooling, religious upbringing, and corporal punishment to the discretion of the parent, this is just not even worth talking about.
 
2012-09-25 09:06:45 AM

RodneyToady: GAT_00: I really don't get why people are so farking pissed about circumcision. I mean, my dick got chopped, and I give zero farks about it. I don't feel mutilated or betrayed or anything like that. Plus there's evidence that suggests the author is right, that circumcision does reduce AIDS transmission. So why do people get so mad about it?

Because it's an unnecessary procedure that carries risk of damaging the penis? Because it reduces sensation? Because it's performed on infants who, when older, should be able to make the decision to undergo the procedure?

/circumcised, would have preferred not


Do you think when you were older you would have said "sure take a scalpel to my penis and cut some skin off"?
 
2012-09-25 09:11:16 AM

JohnnyBravo: I am snipped and both of my sons are as well. I feel like it introduced them to several very important life lessons:

1. Life isn't fair.
2. You will do whatever your parents tell you. Get a foreskin when you work for it, young man.
3. Jews run the system
4. Bottom line is the majority of women prefer snipped. Taxes must be paid by everyone.

/bottom line is women like snipped, and it provides some health benefits.


I'm a woman and I prefer uncut.

/thinks it's a parental decision like any other medical procedure
// my son is uncut
 
2012-09-25 09:15:11 AM

IlGreven: GAT_00: RodneyToady: If circumcision was that important of a medical thing, it would be impressed upon people pretty much the world over. It's not

Which would of course by why there's not a medical program to encourage circumcisions on the entire continent of Africa.

There are also programs in favor of the execution of gays. They also think raping virgins cures you of AIDS. And, of course, they think circumcision is okay when they do it to young girls.

A medical wonderland, Africa is not.


I like that everyone on the continent of Africa can be boiled down to "they". Like it's a farking beehive and they all share the same thoughts.
 
2012-09-25 09:20:55 AM

Summercat: And the fact that the equivalent of female circumcision would be chopping off 70% of the penis in Africa, not a tiny bit of skin in the United States

.

Not allowing gays into Boy Scouts might not be as bad as forcing children to be child soldiers, but as an issue it has the virtue of happening in the United States where we can deal with it. 

/bold items added for completeness. 
//I don't compare hitting my thumb with a hammer to my neighbor losing an arm in 'Nam, but that doesn't mean I like doing it.
 
2012-09-25 09:21:37 AM

OhioUGrad: RodneyToady: GAT_00: I really don't get why people are so farking pissed about circumcision. I mean, my dick got chopped, and I give zero farks about it. I don't feel mutilated or betrayed or anything like that. Plus there's evidence that suggests the author is right, that circumcision does reduce AIDS transmission. So why do people get so mad about it?

Because it's an unnecessary procedure that carries risk of damaging the penis? Because it reduces sensation? Because it's performed on infants who, when older, should be able to make the decision to undergo the procedure?

/circumcised, would have preferred not

Do you think when you were older you would have said "sure take a scalpel to my penis and cut some skin off"?


Sounds like a fantastic reason to not do the stupid practice at all, if your argument is that nobody would agree to it when they get old enough to decide for themselves. That's really your position?

America. What a bunch of weird people, lopping off bits of little boys sucks for cosmetic reasons (dont lie to yourselves, saying that AMERICAN women prefer it is a cosmetic reason) and extremely flaky medical benefits that can be replicated with proper hygiene and not sticking it into infected whores.
 
2012-09-25 09:22:21 AM

OhioUGrad: Do you think when you were older you would have said "sure take a scalpel to my penis and cut some skin off"?


Better than saying "Hey, can you magically reattach that part of my wang you cut off 15-18 years ago?"

Perhaps it would be uncomfortable for a few days at that point, but bottom line, it's still an option. The other way isn't.
 
2012-09-25 09:24:20 AM
A circumcision thread with only 82 replies? This isn't the Internet I grew up with.
 
2012-09-25 09:32:13 AM
What I think a lot of people fail to realize is that one of the big reasons circumcision works to reduce AIDS in Africa is because in those studies the men were also given safe sex information and basic hygiene training. So they learned to wash their dicks, and they were given an understanding of how an std is transmitted. I think those two things probably had a great impact on the outcome of the studies.
 
2012-09-25 09:34:53 AM

PrinceOfPersia: and not sticking it into infected whores.


What about all of the people who are infected, but who aren't whores?
 
2012-09-25 09:34:58 AM
Sigh. This shiat again.
The evidence that circumcision can prevent the spread of HIV is unequivocal. Circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection by about 70 percent-making it more effective than most flu vaccines-and it is being promoted by global health authorities such as the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as a simple, permanent, and effective way to help prevent HIV infection.
Hey retard, the infection rate is ridiculously LOW to begin with for vaginal sex, and it doesn't help for the "other" hole at all. 70% sounds like a lot, but it's 1 out of 1000 instead of 0.58 out of 1000
 
2012-09-25 09:35:02 AM

RodneyToady: GAT_00: So what about correcting cleft palates? Or any other countless cosmetic surgeries that are performed every day that aren't necessary, but somehow people don't pitch a farking fit about those. I think you feel somehow wronged for reasons passing understanding. Circumcision has legitimate medical use in reducing HIV and HPV transmission, as well as reducing more general infections like skin irritation and UTIs. It isn't something like female circumcision and I feel that male critics of male circumcision are somehow conflating the two. Get over it. If it's done in a medically sound way in a hospital by parents, you have no right to stop them, just like you have no right to stop any other surgery on a child with parental permission or an abortion.

Do you honestly not see the difference between correcting a cleft palate and performing a circumcision on normal, healthy penis?

If circumcision was that important of a medical thing, it would be impressed upon people pretty much the world over. It's not. It would be encouraged in the US in the way vaccines are encouraged. It's not. If it wasn't for the religious aspect, circumcision would likely be a rare procedure.


Actually, the article explicitly notes that the American Academy of Pediatrics (the leading legitimate accreditation body for pediatricians in the US) has in fact issued a public statement to their physicians that circumcision "has more benefits than risks" and encourages pediatricians to discuss the benefits and risks with their clients--whilst it's not outright calling for "snip the baby", their statement is pretty much that it's a benign and potentially even useful procedure. (Here's the professional statement here, if you want it from the horse's mouth.)

If circumcision were seen as harmful or an unnecessary procedure, any statements re circumcision by AAP would be a lot more similar to AAP's general condemnation of "degaying" or their condemnation of female genital mutilation or even the AAP statement discouraging the use of non-interactive media with infants and emphasizing the most important educational activity for babies is for parents to play with them. If the AAP thinks something is Bad and Unnecessary, they'll state it flat out, trust me. :D

As it is, though, the AAP statement on circumcision is probably closer to the general recommendations for community planning to help kids get sixty minutes of exercise a day or AAP recommendations on how long mother and child should be in hospital after a normal and uncomplicated birth.
 
2012-09-25 09:35:30 AM

cassanovascotian: OhioUGrad: Do you think when you were older you would have said "sure take a scalpel to my penis and cut some skin off"?

Better than saying "Hey, can you magically reattach that part of my wang you cut off 15-18 years ago?"

Perhaps it would be uncomfortable for a few days at that point, but bottom line, it's still an option. The other way isn't.


That is true, but I don't think I'd want mine reattached even if that was an option. I don't think many people would opt to have it done in teen years just from the thought/fear alone.
 
2012-09-25 09:40:12 AM
I had always heard that my parents had done me a disservice by having me circumcised as a baby, though I could never really understand why. The Anti-circumcision crowd told me that it was because the lack of a foreskin made the skin on my glans some 20 times thicker than someone uncut and, therefor, I had less sensation from sex. That just didn't seem right to me, since any more sensation would result in premature ejaculation. But it did kind of make sense. Then a friend of mine, who was intact and who had suffered from recurring bouts of balanitis (inflammation of the foreskin) and sometime phimosis (the inability to retract an over-tight foreskin over the head of the penis), finally took his urologists advice and was circumcised. I asked him if he had experienced a loss of sensation during sex and his answer was "Hell no! It's much better now!" His explanation was that during sex, much of the time, his glans was covered by this foreskin, unless he manually kept it retracted. This is, of course, awkward and diminishes the spontaneity of the act. He said he wish he had done it years earlier.

/making no judgments about circumcision
 
2012-09-25 09:42:18 AM
So. Who else went off to Amazon and rated down all the reviews from people who didn't read the book? I found them completely unhelpful.
 
2012-09-25 09:48:20 AM
Very fair and balanced article
 
2012-09-25 09:49:46 AM

JackieRabbit: use the lack of a foreskin made the skin on my glans some 20 times thicker than someone uncut and, therefor, I had less sensation fr


It's so funny, we see this ALL the time in America. Always some "medical" issue to get cut as a teenager or older. I am sure some conditions exists, but it's really rare and unheard of where being "Cut" is the abnormal thing to be. This leads me to believe a lot of these cases are actually peer pressured cases, esp. those that got cut during their early teens. Sad.
 
2012-09-25 10:08:44 AM
img.photobucket.com

"A remedy for masturbation 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 anaesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment."

"In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid (phenol) to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement."

John Harvey Kellogg, the "Father" of circumcision in the US. This is the guy who made it common in the US. A guy who also burned the clitoris off of little girls to stop them from (gasp!) playing with themselves. Wonderful guy to take medical advise from concerning your children.

/He was also big into yogurt enemas. I am not joking.
 
2012-09-25 10:13:31 AM

GAT_00: RodneyToady: GAT_00: I really don't get why people are so farking pissed about circumcision. I mean, my dick got chopped, and I give zero farks about it. I don't feel mutilated or betrayed or anything like that. Plus there's evidence that suggests the author is right, that circumcision does reduce AIDS transmission. So why do people get so mad about it?

Because it's an unnecessary procedure that carries risk of damaging the penis? Because it reduces sensation? Because it's performed on infants who, when older, should be able to make the decision to undergo the procedure?

/circumcised, would have preferred not

So any medical procedure performed on children shouldn't be done because there are risks?


On AIDS transmission: the transmission rate goes from 0.01% - 0.38% down to 0.005% - 0.19% (or roughly 50%). I'd rather not get a piece of my body snipped of just so people can claim it protects against something I won't have to worry about in either case. With
On hygiene: wash it sometimes.

On penile cancer: Reduce it from 1,5 in 100.000 to what? 1 in 50.000? Not worth the risk. Especially since it mostly happens to people in the 50+ region.

Fun fact: 1 in 500.000 infants die due to a botched circumcision (let's assume a similar amount simply loses their dick or becomes impotent due to infection or other errors). My chances of outright dying or losing 9functionalityof ) my penis are only 3x higher than needing cancer treatment, which at the very worst will cost you your dick if you don't go to a doctor once strange lumps start to grow. With all the "checking' men do they should notice that.

Conclusion: the risks are negligible and the complications occur at roughly the same amount as the risk they are supposed to prevent. Not worth it.
 
2012-09-25 10:22:33 AM

RodneyToady:

I also didn't say it should be illegal per se, just that it should be delayed until the boy is old enough to decide for himself, unless there is a medical necessity to perform it (e.g., foreskin issues, etc).


As a mom who was "on the fence" about circumcising her boy (left it up to dad) let me just say that doing it as an infant really is the best time. You're already in a hospital for several days and you're already being extra careful with diaper changes because of waiting for the umbilical cord to heal. Plus it does reduce the chances of infections and other issues while still an infant, not just the stuff that can happen when he's sexually active.

I think my son can wait to hold frozen peas to his crotch for when he gets the other kind of snipped.
 
2012-09-25 10:23:11 AM
So do all the "studies" that "prove" it's "medically helpful" explain the mechanism for how uncircumcised penises make one more likely to contract/spread AIDS?

Or did they just fail to account for the fact that circumcision in Africa may be positively correlated with more urban and affluent populations that also use *actual* preventative measures?
 
2012-09-25 10:24:27 AM

LaraAmber: As a mom who was "on the fence" about circumcising her boy (left it up to dad) let me just say that doing it as an infant really is the best time. You're already in a hospital for several days and you're already being extra careful with diaper changes because of waiting for the umbilical cord to heal. Plus it does reduce the chances of infections and other issues while still an infant, not just the stuff that can happen when he's sexually active.

I think my son can wait to hold frozen peas to his crotch for when he gets the other kind of snipped.


Did you watch the doctors cut your son's foreskin off? Because if you didn't you're a farking coward.
 
2012-09-25 10:25:19 AM

DerAppie: On penile cancer: Reduce it from 1,5 in 100.000 to what? 1 in 50.000? Not worth the risk. Especially since it mostly happens to people in the 50+ region.


Yeah, about that....



AMERICAN
CANCER
SOCIETY
NATIONAL HOME OFFICE



February 16, 1996

Dr. Peter Rappo
Committee on Practice & Ambulatory Medicine
American Academy of Pediatrics
141 Northwest Point Boulevard
P. O. Box 927
Elk Grove Village, IL 60009-0927

Dear Dr. Rappo:

As representatives of the American Cancer Society, we would like to
discourage the American Academy of Pediatrics from promoting routine
circumcision as preventative measure for penile or cervical cancer.
The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision
to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such cancers.

Research suggesting a pattern in the circumcision status of partners
of women with cervical cancer is methodologically flawed, outdated and
has not been taken seriously in the medical community for decades.


Likewise, research claiming a relationship between circumcision and
penile cancer is inconclusive. Penile cancer is an extremely rare
condition, effecting one in 200,000 men in the United States. Penile
cancer rates in countries which do not practice circumcision are lower
than those found in the United States. Fatalities caused by
circumcision accidents may approximate the mortality rate from penile
cancer.


Portraying routine circumcision as an effective means of prevention
distracts the public from the task of avoiding the behaviors proven to
contribute to penile and cervical cancer: especially cigarette smoking
and unprotected sexual relations with multiple partners. Perpetuating
the mistaken belief that circumcision prevents cancer is inappropriate.


Sincerely,


Hugh Shingleton, M.D. Clark W. Heath, Jr., M.D.
National Vice President Vice President
Detection & Treatment Epidemiology & Surveillance Research



Eh, what the fark do they know?
 
2012-09-25 10:25:48 AM
It appears that the system ate a part of my comment. To continue:

with less than 0.5% of the population having AIDS I have a less than 1% chance of contracting said AIDS during my weekly orgy with random women. It should also be noted that the US, where snipping is encouraged, there is a higher prevalence of AIDS than in the Netherlands, where snipping is discouraged.
 
Displayed 50 of 156 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report