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)   Twas circumcision and fringe groups that broke the internet, not those videos of your Mom   (slate.com) divider line 443
    More: Sad, systematic review, marketplace of ideas, penile cancers, male sexuality, circumcisions, amputations, female genital mutilation, mutilation  
•       •       •

7975 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Sep 2013 at 5:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-18 06:36:51 PM

hardinparamedic: What are you even talking about?

And yes, in a clinical in-patient setting, a person getting a circumcision as a neonate will get, at the very least, EMLA cream, and in an actual childrens hospital will get versed and Fentanyl.


Sorry, I was unclear in that sentence. I restructured it after I started and didn't proofread carefully enough.

I didn't mean we don't give any pain relief to infants, I just meant that the dosage for the infant procedure is strictly anticipatory (we assume there will be some pain and provide some treatment without any feedback) while the dosage for the adult procedure is guided by patient feedback (we treat the actual pain as reported by the patient).
 
2013-09-18 06:36:52 PM

Abox: Circumcision just gives people with sexual problems something to blame.

It's the 'it's whitey!!  and 'it's the jooooooooos!!!' of sexual inadequacy.


Look upthread. "It's the jooooooooos!!!" has been covered.
 
2013-09-18 06:37:10 PM

hardinparamedic: Jill'sNipple: Circumcision is the same as female gential mutilation. (DERP)

Whelp. Now that we've had THAT guy speak.

profplump: Far more traumatic in what way -- what system are you using to quantify trauma?

Have you got any numbers we could use to compare the adult vs. infant rates for complications, preferably with some breakdown of the severity or types of complications and the circumstances of the procedure? Personally I haven't been able to find any good apples-to-apples comparisons; adult circumcisions performed in Africa (where they are somewhat common with the intent of HIV prevention) have a much higher rate of complications than infant circumcisions in surgical facilities in the US, but that's hardly unexpected, and I haven't had any luck finding data for adult circumcisions in surgical facilities in the US.

Far more traumatic in the sense that a child will require longer periods of pain medication, and heavier amounts of sedation and potentially general anesthesia to perform it.

I'll try to dig up some research numbers on adult versus neonatal circumcision complication numbers, since the most I know about is neonatal (which has a <1% all-complication rate, mostly related to improper wound care and infection.)


I did not say it's the same effect for males or females. Don't misquote me. And, if you're going to insert fake quotes and attribute them to me, at least spell them right.
 
2013-09-18 06:38:21 PM

FunkOut: HIstorically, some regions did a female circumcision that was just the removal of the clitoral hood so the clitoral bud had no skin covering it. I can't imagine having such a sensitive area not having any protection. Like having your eyelid permanently rolled inside out.


Clearly there's a disconnect in this thread. Some people are talking about removing a small piece of skin around the genitals while others are thinking of putting it through a lawnmower.

/ it keeps gunk from building up, which is probably the main benefit in the modern age
 
2013-09-18 06:39:08 PM

profplump: I'm asking about the ethical basis for such a distinction. Why is one person who temporarily cannot communicate subject to the will of others with respect to medical care while another temporarily non-communicative person would be left untreated until they could express their will (or there was some urgent need)?


Because in your example, you used an adult patient with lice who was sleeping. This is a person who has the ability to understand information, and make an informed self-determination (in theory) on his course of treatment on a matter which does not either eminently endanger his life, OR takes away his ability to do the aformentioned act of self-determination. 

Comparing this to a child which has not even developed enough to understand the risk versus benefit, let alone vocalize it, our legal system recognizes that the parents are the best proxy determinants in this situation, with the intention of the best outcome for that child in mind.

It's their decision. We can argue about the "ethical ramifications" of cosmetics and the fact you're angry that someone "took your foreskin" down the road, but the simple fact of the matter is that the parents are the best ones able to make that decision when given all the information.
 
2013-09-18 06:39:14 PM

Abox: Circumcision just gives people with sexual problems something to blame.

It's the 'it's whitey!!  and 'it's the jooooooooos!!!' of sexual inadequacy.


I guess it's easy for me to blame it, since what happened to me doesn't seem to happen to people who aren't cut.
 
2013-09-18 06:40:17 PM

hardinparamedic: At any rate, you said something completely hyperbolic and offensive, comparing a medical procedure performed by a physician with an act of brutality, and then tried to play it off as "what the word is defined as", when it was nothing of the sort.


I can't control the fact that you're offended by the actual meanings that words have.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, since you're so emotional that it makes debate rather pointless.
 
2013-09-18 06:41:56 PM

Jill'sNipple: I did not say it's the same effect for males or females. Don't misquote me. And, if you're going to insert fake quotes and attribute them to me, at least spell them right.


Really?

i.imgur.com
i.imgur.com 
And I attributed DERP to you. You said DERP. Derp got attributed.
 
2013-09-18 06:43:16 PM

hardinparamedic: profplump: I'm asking about the ethical basis for such a distinction. Why is one person who temporarily cannot communicate subject to the will of others with respect to medical care while another temporarily non-communicative person would be left untreated until they could express their will (or there was some urgent need)?

Because in your example, you used an adult patient with lice who was sleeping. This is a person who has the ability to understand information, and make an informed self-determination (in theory) on his course of treatment on a matter which does not either eminently endanger his life, OR takes away his ability to do the aformentioned act of self-determination. 

Comparing this to a child which has not even developed enough to understand the risk versus benefit, let alone vocalize it, our legal system recognizes that the parents are the best proxy determinants in this situation, with the intention of the best outcome for that child in mind.

It's their decision. We can argue about the "ethical ramifications" of cosmetics and the fact you're angry that someone "took your foreskin" down the road, but the simple fact of the matter is that the parents are the best ones able to make that decision when given all the information.


Yet I see what happened to me, and I can say with a great deal of confidence on a medical and logical standpoint that my parents' conclusion was not correct. They and my doctor earnestly believed it was in my interests, but my years of blood and my future of sexual inadequacy is what counts here.

I don't blame them, I can't. They thought they were doing the right thing. In their mind, what happened to me was worth it. I don't believe the years of physical pain I had, and the two years of skin stretching and regeneration, for the mere sake of functionality, was worth lowering a chance of a UTI. I'd take a UTI any day over this. But sometimes, you simply have to deal with the cards you're given.

I'm lucky to have a sound and healthy mind, others like me haven't been so lucky. It didn't take long for me to find other men like me, or even those who were worse off.
 
2013-09-18 06:43:26 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I can't control the fact that you're offended by the actual meanings that words have.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, since you're so emotional that it makes debate rather pointless.


I guess reality has a bias against you, since we're going with "actual meanings that words have".
 
2013-09-18 06:44:00 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Do you disagree that genitals are involved or that circumcision "is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function" of the penis?


How is the function altered in a negative way?  It still gets erect.  It still gets sensitive.  As for aesthetics, that's in the eye of the beholder.  Personally, excess foreskin looks nasty to me.


Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Circumcision is like cutting off a baby's ears so that it won't have to deal with the hassle of washing behind them later in life.


What you describe is ear castration, not circumcision.  But hey, disingenuous comparisons are fair game, huh?


hardinparamedic: Account Created: 9/11/2013. Gee. I wonder if you wouldn't be an alt of someone else on FARK that follows your general name scheme.


Yeah, I smell an alt or an overeager new troll.  Thanks for pointing that out.
 
2013-09-18 06:45:48 PM

MaestroJ: Yet I see what happened to me, and I can say with a great deal of confidence on a medical and logical standpoint that my parents' conclusion was not correct. They and my doctor earnestly believed it was in my interests, but my years of blood and my future of sexual inadequacy is what counts here.

I don't blame them, I can't. They thought they were doing the right thing. In their mind, what happened to me was worth it. I don't believe the years of physical pain I had, and the two years of skin stretching and regeneration, for the mere sake of functionality, was worth lowering a chance of a UTI. I'd take a UTI any day over this. But sometimes, you simply have to deal with the cards you're given.

I'm lucky to have a sound and healthy mind, others like me haven't been so lucky. It didn't take long for me to find other men like me, or even those who were worse off.


What happened to you is horrible. I'm sorry that you had to deal with that. However, as I pointed out before, seeking to ban a procedure that has earnest and demonstrated benefits because complications happen in half of less than one percent (with actual rate of complications lasting over the life of a person less than that) of the procedure is the same as trying to ban vaccination beacause one in one million doses will cause a life-threatening reaction that could lead to life-long disability down the road.
 
2013-09-18 06:46:14 PM
Anti-circumcision? What a bunch of smegheads.

uktv.co.uk
 
2013-09-18 06:47:09 PM
One of the best names for an advocacy group. Ever.
s15.postimg.org
Oh, and the doctors up here in Canada don't recommend it. Even the Jewish and Moslem ones.
Its only "devout" people wanting to get brownie points for the afterlife that have it done.to their kids
 
2013-09-18 06:48:07 PM
It's insensitive to call the mutilation of genitals "genital mutilation" because it isn't the exact same as an entirely different type of genital mutilation. Instead, lets call it Super Amazing Babby Penis Slicing-Off Courtesy.
 
2013-09-18 06:48:12 PM

hardinparamedic: Because in your example, you used an adult patient with lice who was sleeping. This is a person who has the ability to understand information, and make an informed self-determination (in theory) on his course of treatment on a matter which does not either eminently endanger his life, OR takes away his ability to do the aformentioned act of self-determination. 

Comparing this to a child which has not even developed enough to understand the risk versus benefit, let alone vocalize it, our legal system recognizes that the parents are the best proxy determinants in this situation, with the intention of the best outcome for that child in mind.


You're ignoring the basis of my argument -- that we could just wait until the now-infant was no longer a child and could speak and reason. There is no eminent threat to the infant's health, and no benefit from the surgery at least until they are sexually active, so there's no reason for the parents to make this decision now, rather than letting the post-pubecent male make his own choice later.
 
2013-09-18 06:49:42 PM
hardinparamedic:
What happened to you is horrible. I'm sorry that you had to deal with that. However, as I pointed out before, seeking to ban a procedure that has earnest and demonstrated benefits because complications happen in half of less than one percent (with actual rate of complications lasting over the life of a person less than that) of the procedure is the same as trying to ban vaccination beacause one in one million doses will cause a life-threatening reaction that could lead to life-long disability down the road.

It's not quite the same here. The "problems" associated with not circumcising don't hold a candle to the diseases that vaccinations prevent. Nearly every issue associated with circumcision is preventable or easily treatable. Polio or other diseases though are not. No other nation in the western world has our circumcision rates, yet they are sexually healthier than us, nor do they have the array of foreskin side effects that our nation seems to be so afraid of. You yourself mentioned less than one percent - the same rates are those for people who are not circumcised, and again, their issues are preventable, not like those of what happened to me.
 
2013-09-18 06:51:02 PM

MaestroJ: hardinparamedic:
What happened to you is horrible. I'm sorry that you had to deal with that. However, as I pointed out before, seeking to ban a procedure that has earnest and demonstrated benefits because complications happen in half of less than one percent (with actual rate of complications lasting over the life of a person less than that) of the procedure is the same as trying to ban vaccination beacause one in one million doses will cause a life-threatening reaction that could lead to life-long disability down the road.

It's not quite the same here. The "problems" associated with not circumcising don't hold a candle to the diseases that vaccinations prevent. Nearly every issue associated with circumcision is preventable or easily treatable. Polio or other diseases though are not. No other nation in the western world has our circumcision rates, yet they are sexually healthier than us, nor do they have the array of foreskin side effects that our nation seems to be so afraid of. You yourself mentioned less than one percent - the same rates are those for people who are not circumcised, and again, their issues are preventable, not like those of what happened to me.


Correction, too late too notice: Should read "Nearly every issue associated with foreskins"
 
2013-09-18 06:51:42 PM

hardinparamedic: our legal system recognizes that the parents are the best proxy determinants in this situation


It does; again I'm not arguing that it doesn't. I'm arguing that maybe it shouldn't for exactly the same reasons we don't use a proxy determinant for unconscious adults who aren't in need of immediate medical care.

More fundamentally I'm arguing that being legal and traditional accepted are not sufficient to make an action "right".
 
2013-09-18 06:51:43 PM

profplump: You're ignoring the basis of my argument -- that we could just wait until the now-infant was no longer a child and could speak and reason. There is no eminent threat to the infant's health, and no benefit from the surgery at least until they are sexually active, so there's no reason for the parents to make this decision now, rather than letting the post-pubecent male make his own choice later.


No, I'm addressing the basis of the argument you're making, namely continuing to argue that there is no benefit to circumcision during infancy, and that the only benefit made by circumcision becomes apparent in adulthood.

As I said before: You can repeat that statement as many times as you want, it does not make it true. There actually ARE benefits to circumcision that are discussed at the time the parents decide, as well as negatives and possible complications. 

At that point and time, it is THEIR decision to wait till adulthood (Or medical necessity), or go ahead and perform the procedure.

You're making arguments from your own personal feelings on the matter. I get that. And I also understand that circumcision is less necessary in the first world than in the third. But you're refusing to see the point that this is not something "forced" without consent.
 
2013-09-18 06:52:16 PM

MaestroJ: Abox: Circumcision just gives people with sexual problems something to blame.

It's the 'it's whitey!!  and 'it's the jooooooooos!!!' of sexual inadequacy.

I guess it's easy for me to blame it, since what happened to me doesn't seem to happen to people who aren't cut.


Yep.  Just like once in a while a white guy or a Jew is actually to blame.
 
2013-09-18 06:53:20 PM

hardinparamedic: is the same as trying to ban vaccination


Vaccinations help children while they are still children. Circumcisions do not.
 
2013-09-18 06:53:48 PM

Abox: MaestroJ: Abox: Circumcision just gives people with sexual problems something to blame.

It's the 'it's whitey!!  and 'it's the jooooooooos!!!' of sexual inadequacy.

I guess it's easy for me to blame it, since what happened to me doesn't seem to happen to people who aren't cut.

Yep.  Just like once in a while a white guy or a Jew is actually to blame.


Seems to happen a lot more than once in a while, though. It didn't take me long to find others like me. Really, I think I'd take a UTI any day over this. Sure, UTIs suck. But, so does a bleeding dick whenever I felt "excited." Know how much middle school sucked?
 
2013-09-18 06:53:55 PM

Fafai: It's insensitive to call the mutilation of genitals "genital mutilation" because it isn't the exact same as an entirely different type of genital mutilation. Instead, lets call it Super Amazing Babby Penis Slicing-Off Courtesy.


Only if we can openly call you a moron. Is that okay?

profplump: More fundamentally I'm arguing that being legal and traditional accepted are not sufficient to make an action "right".


So who should make a decision at that point and time for something that is far less painful, traumatic, and costly on that neonate? Should we appoint a guardian ad litem? Maybe have a bench judge for circumcision court? (We could televise it)

Again. I understand your personal feelings on this matter and where you're coming from. But it's their choice.
 
2013-09-18 06:54:25 PM

hardinparamedic: No, I'm addressing the basis of the argument you're making, namely continuing to argue that there is no benefit to circumcision during infancy, and that the only benefit made by circumcision becomes apparent in adulthood.

As I said before: You can repeat that statement as many times as you want, it does not make it true. There actually ARE benefits to circumcision that are discussed at the time the parents decide, as well as negatives and possible complications.


What benefits? The article talks about reducing HIV transmission, and to a lesser degree other STDs. What are the benefits to infants?
 
2013-09-18 06:56:17 PM

profplump: Vaccinations help children while they are still children. Circumcisions do not.


[Citation Needed, you keep repeating that.]
 
2013-09-18 06:56:22 PM
All I need to know is that uncut cocks look disgusting and I would never stick one in my mouth.  Up my ass MAYBE, but only if I didn't see it beforehand.

Cut cocks, on the other hand, are sexy as hell.
 
2013-09-18 06:56:42 PM

super_grass: FunkOut: HIstorically, some regions did a female circumcision that was just the removal of the clitoral hood so the clitoral bud had no skin covering it. I can't imagine having such a sensitive area not having any protection. Like having your eyelid permanently rolled inside out.

Clearly there's a disconnect in this thread. Some people are talking about removing a small piece of skin around the genitals while others are thinking of putting it through a lawnmower.

/ it keeps gunk from building up, which is probably the main benefit in the modern age


Hot showers and dental work are the crowning achievements of the modern era.
 
2013-09-18 06:56:51 PM
The author of the article does have a point. It is interesting how the internet, which should connect us to a variety of cultures, viewpoints, and facts, is so misleading. We should be able to use the internet to find level headed information about controversial topics. Instead groups with an interest in promoting an agenda are able to spread misinformation faster than any urban legend ever could a few decades ago. If I want to find out about circumcision or vaccinations or corn syrup or some other controversy then I can look online and search for information only to be told whatever Google thinks I want to hear (or whatever the people who buy page ranks want me to hear).

We could address this. This is the same sort of pick-and-choose fact selection that makes people say things like, "they've never found transitional fossils," in 2013. It's probably bad for society.

Or we can have repetitive threads about the value of foreskin until Armageddon.

/I've never cared about the circumcision debate
 
2013-09-18 06:59:45 PM

hardinparamedic: So who should make a decision at that point and time for something that is far less painful, traumatic, and costly on that neonate?


First I'd question how you're determining the procedure is "less painful" or "less traumatic". That's frequently claimed in this discussion but I'm not aware of any way to measure the amount of pain any person feels, let alone an infant.

Second, it's not clear to me that the benefit of "it's better if you do it sooner" is sufficient to overcome the harm of "we take the choice away from you". I can see why people would disagree with me here; it's certainly not a clear call. But you could make the same argument about a temporarily unconscious adult, and in such cases we almost always error on the side of waiting for them to express their will, even if it will make future treatment somewhat more complicated.
 
2013-09-18 07:00:23 PM
If circumcision didn't have any historical precedent or social inertia and were invented today; the person who came up with it and suggested it should be done to a majority of male infants would be locked up.
 
2013-09-18 07:00:27 PM

hardinparamedic: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I don't even know who you're arguing with. I'm just stating the definitions of the two words I used to describe circumcision.

If you disagree that they are apt, take it up with Merriam and Webster.

Actually, I think it's your own personal definition.

But no. Please, continue to BS us about "dictionary" definitions. You said something borderline offensive and ignorant of people who are victims of ACTUAL gential mutilation, and got called out on it.


www.blogcdn.com
 
2013-09-18 07:00:57 PM

hardinparamedic: profplump: Vaccinations help children while they are still children. Circumcisions do not.

[Citation Needed, you keep repeating that.]


You keep claiming that they do. As far as I can tell the article related to this thread does not support that claim, nor have you provided any related evidence.
 
2013-09-18 07:02:38 PM

radarlove: All I need to know is that uncut cocks look disgusting and I would never stick one in my mouth.  Up my ass MAYBE, but only if I didn't see it beforehand.

Cut cocks, on the other hand, are sexy as hell.


Men's genitals are no good unless they have been surgically modified? Humans genetics says they're supposed to look a certain way.
 
2013-09-18 07:04:02 PM

profplump: hardinparamedic: profplump: Vaccinations help children while they are still children. Circumcisions do not.

[Citation Needed, you keep repeating that.]

You keep claiming that they do. As far as I can tell the article related to this thread does not support that claim, nor have you provided any related evidence.


Um, top left, first page, right under the word "ABSTRACT" then lower right on same page under "Conclusion"
 
2013-09-18 07:10:15 PM

Underwater Bystander: The author of the article does have a point. It is interesting how the internet, which should connect us to a variety of cultures, viewpoints, and facts, is so misleading. We should be able to use the internet to find level headed information about controversial topics. Instead groups with an interest in promoting an agenda are able to spread misinformation faster than any urban legend ever could a few decades ago.


The article itself is pushing an agenda under the guise of criticizing its opponents: "As both a personal and public health matter, circumcision is clearly in men's best interest [...] Intactivists, in short, are winning the online battle. Is it only a matter of time until they win the greater war?" It sets up a strawman of the anti-circumcision argument, leaving out the most important aspect - agency over one's body and personal rights - in an attempt to persuade the reader that the argument has already been decided, describing those he disagrees with as a "vitriolic mob," with "strange fixations" who perpetuate an "angry, victimized orthodoxy." It's a pretty hypocritical article, because it's not written as an objective look at the situation.

It's written explicitly to promote his ideology and marginalize another, all the while decrying how others do the same.
 
2013-09-18 07:10:29 PM

FunkOut: radarlove: All I need to know is that uncut cocks look disgusting and I would never stick one in my mouth.  Up my ass MAYBE, but only if I didn't see it beforehand.

Cut cocks, on the other hand, are sexy as hell.

Men's genitals are no good unless they have been surgically modified? Humans genetics says they're supposed to look a certain way.


Appearance is very much a cultural thing, and even the AAP states that the decision to circumcise should NOT be based on the asthetic appearance, but rather the parent's feeling that benefit outweighs the risk.
 
2013-09-18 07:15:06 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Circumcision is like cutting off a baby's ears so that it won't have to deal with the hassle of washing behind them later in life.


I left my kids intact when I learned that there is NO anesthetic used during the procedure. They said the child would forget the pain. Maybe. But I would not.
No other argument was necessary after that, and no argument could change my mind.
Still think I did the right thing. That is no proper introduction to the world. I don't care who you are.
Care is needed when operating zippers though, or you're in for some uncomfortable calls from school nurses.
 
2013-09-18 07:16:44 PM
Efforts to ban circumcision have failed big time. A federal judge made san fransisco remove a measure to ban circumcision off a ballot because it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

Now that these bigoted, anti-religious troglodytes have no legal way to stifle religious freedom, they have resorted nazi style tactics to further their hatred towards Jews and Christians.

If you have a problem with people exercising their religious freedom, GO FARK YOURSELF!

If you have been circumcised and you resent it, go see a shrink and tell the scum who shamed you to go FARK THEMSELVES!!!

/Didn't capitalize san fransisco because I felt like it.
//Off to the desert to for long weekend of hunting
///At lest rock don't bleed or twitch funny when you hit them hard.
 
2013-09-18 07:17:16 PM

dstrick44: I left my kids intact when I learned that there is NO anesthetic used during the procedure. They said the child would forget the pain. Maybe. But I would not.


Wait, what?

Where were your kids born at? I ask because I want to avoid going there.
 
2013-09-18 07:19:13 PM

hardinparamedic: Fafai: It's insensitive to call the mutilation of genitals "genital mutilation" because it isn't the exact same as an entirely different type of genital mutilation. Instead, lets call it Super Amazing Babby Penis Slicing-Off Courtesy.

Only if we can openly call you a moron. Is that okay?


Ha ha, you sure told me! ...But sure, please call me whatever you like if it means you'll stop pulling the FGM ISN'T THE SAME broken record routine on people who never even hinted at any such thing in the first place.

/Why do you have such a hard-on for the pained tears of little baby boys?
//I don't actually believe you do, just thought I'd try your debating style
///you disingenuous twat
 
2013-09-18 07:22:36 PM

Boojum2k: Um, top left, first page, right under the word "ABSTRACT" then lower right on same page under "Conclusion"


That study doesn't show the benefit of circumcision in reducing UTIs. It does cite other studies which show increased rates of pediatric UTIs in uncircumcized males, which I don't content. But it does not recommend circumcision as a preventative measure for UTIs, and neither does the National Institute of Health:

"Circumcision to reduce the risk to 0.18%, up to 10 times in the first 6 months. Recommendation for routine circumcision is controversial not supported by the existing evidence."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3063462/
 
2013-09-18 07:23:13 PM

profplump: don't content.


Don't contend.
 
2013-09-18 07:23:31 PM
m.memegen.com


le sorry for le meme, but it remains le true.
 
2013-09-18 07:23:48 PM

FunkOut: radarlove: All I need to know is that uncut cocks look disgusting and I would never stick one in my mouth.  Up my ass MAYBE, but only if I didn't see it beforehand.

Cut cocks, on the other hand, are sexy as hell.

Men's genitals are no good unless they have been surgically modified? Humans genetics says they're supposed to look a certain way.


Well no, it could also mean that intact foreskin hasn't selected out because it's often lopped off in infancy.  Like how bad vision hasn't selected out because we invented a tool to make it succeed.
 
2013-09-18 07:26:27 PM

FunkOut: radarlove: All I need to know is that uncut cocks look disgusting and I would never stick one in my mouth.  Up my ass MAYBE, but only if I didn't see it beforehand.

Cut cocks, on the other hand, are sexy as hell.

Men's genitals are no good unless they have been surgically modified? Humans genetics says they're supposed to look a certain way.


What the fark do I care what human genetics says? I say it looks ugly and won't touch it.  Many others feel the same way.  Some do not.  Some people even have foreskin fetishes.  Genetics says the balls are way more important but almost nobody has a ball fetish.  Go fig.
 
2013-09-18 07:26:27 PM

Fafai: Ha ha, you sure told me! ...But sure, please call me whatever you like if it means you'll stop pulling the FGM ISN'T THE SAME broken record routine on people who never even hinted at any such thing in the first place.

/Why do you have such a hard-on for the pained tears of little baby boys?
//I don't actually believe you do, just thought I'd try your debating style
///you disingenuous twat


Oh please. Enlighten us. Tell us uninformed masses how it's the same.

Also, it's one of the tactics of the anti-circumcision crowd. Please don't pretend like it isn't. It's even been done by others in this thread.
 
2013-09-18 07:28:23 PM

Abox: FunkOut: radarlove: All I need to know is that uncut cocks look disgusting and I would never stick one in my mouth.  Up my ass MAYBE, but only if I didn't see it beforehand.

Cut cocks, on the other hand, are sexy as hell.

Men's genitals are no good unless they have been surgically modified? Humans genetics says they're supposed to look a certain way.

Well no, it could also mean that intact foreskin hasn't selected out because it's often lopped off in infancy.  Like how bad vision hasn't selected out because we invented a tool to make it succeed.


You can tell this is a valid argument by all those Swedish dudes who evolved cut cocks. Think I'll go get it snipped tomorrow.
 
2013-09-18 07:28:26 PM

profplump: Boojum2k: Um, top left, first page, right under the word "ABSTRACT" then lower right on same page under "Conclusion"

That study doesn't show the benefit of circumcision in reducing UTIs. It does cite other studies which show increased rates of pediatric UTIs in uncircumcized males, which I don't content. But it does not recommend circumcision as a preventative measure for UTIs, and neither does the National Institute of Health:

"Circumcision to reduce the risk to 0.18%, up to 10 times in the first 6 months. Recommendation for routine circumcision is controversial not supported by the existing evidence."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3063462/


Yeah it does, right under "conclusion."
And your linked study also mentions benefits on circumcision to prevent UTIs. Right after your quote. Funny how you have trouble reading words that don't support your stance. Took multiple attempts for hardinparamedic and then me to point out the part you skipped on the very first page.
 
2013-09-18 07:28:37 PM

FunkOut: radarlove: All I need to know is that uncut cocks look disgusting and I would never stick one in my mouth.  Up my ass MAYBE, but only if I didn't see it beforehand.

Cut cocks, on the other hand, are sexy as hell.

Men's genitals are no good unless they have been surgically modified? Humans genetics says they're supposed to look a certain way.


Primate ancestors used to have spines, and we still have wisdom teeth and appendixes. Humans ancestors lost their barbed penises due to evolution, and the loss of sensitivity meant that the copulated for long durations, and bonded emotional more. This in turn is theorized as to what got early humans to become more emotionally close, and in turn develop language, cooperation, and ultimately; civilization.  In conclusion;
images.didioffendyou.com
 
Displayed 50 of 443 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report