Do you have adblock enabled?
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 169
    More: Sad, systematic review, marketplace of ideas, penile cancers, male sexuality, circumcisions, amputations, female genital mutilation, mutilation  
•       •       •

7985 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-09-18 05:37:18 PM  
8 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: Argyle82: NEPAman: The author sounds circumcised.

This.

Keep defending your parents archaic decision when you were born, author.  Whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy.

Why is it so hard for you foreskinists to accept that people really don't give a fark?


I've found that those that obsess over this issue typically have other problems and are just looking for something to blame it on.

/and anyone who calls circumcision "mutilation" is simply not someone you can have a rational discussion with
2013-09-18 05:37:54 PM  
7 votes:

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.


Except instead of funneling sound to your earhole, foreskin funnels diseases to your peehole?
2013-09-18 05:36:02 PM  
6 votes:
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.
2013-09-19 12:13:54 AM  
5 votes:

surrybee: how do you make a baby feel absolutely nothing?


By subjecting it to forty years of pointless, soul-crushing wage slavery in a world where out ideals consistently run contrary to our reality.

And booze.
2013-09-18 06:16:42 PM  
5 votes:

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?


Is circumcision performed without the consent of the responsible parties, and done so against the will of the other person with the express intent of removing their ability to sexually perform and ensuring the person remains a virgin because sex before marriage quite possibly would kill that girl from infection and trauma?

I love first world arrogance and exceptionalism on this topic. "MY CIRCUMCISION AT BIRTH, WHICH I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER AND WAS DONE UNDER SEDATION BY A TRAINED SURGEON, UROLOGIST, OR PEDIATRICIAN IS  EXACTLY THE SAME  AS A PREPUBESCENT GIRL BEING HELD DOWN BY THE MEN IN HER FAMILY AND HAVING HER LABIA SLICED OFF, HER CLIT SCRAPED OUT, AND HER GENTIALS FUSED SHUT EXCEPT FOR A HOLE FOR HER TO URINATE AND MENSTRATE THROUGH, AND ON HER WEDDING NIGHT HAVING HER HUSBAND USE A POCKET KNIFE TO CUT HER SCAR OPEN SO HE CAN fark HER."

So yes. People who compare FGM with circumcision done by a medical provider are disingenious at best, and a prime example of first world privilege at worse.
2013-09-18 05:33:30 PM  
5 votes:

Kazan: Oh look.... he's citing studies that have already been debunked.

NEXT bullshiat artist.


Are you referring to specific studies he's citing, or all of them?

Or are you just trying to cast doubt on the article without going to the effort of actually making an argument?
2013-09-18 05:32:26 PM  
5 votes:
id34121.securedata.net
2013-09-18 05:32:20 PM  
5 votes:

Argyle82: NEPAman: The author sounds circumcised.

This.

Keep defending your parents archaic decision when you were born, author.  Whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy.


Why is it so hard for you foreskinists to accept that people really don't give a fark?
2013-09-18 06:31:38 PM  
4 votes:

Jill'sNipple: The double standard on this is pretty crazy. Some extremely well-educated female friends feel completely comfortable advocating for circumcision based entirely on aesthetics. These same friends would be horrified if some guy said he wouldn't sleep with them unless they had a little nip-and-tuck on their own undercarriage for the same reason. I think either way is insane.


There is no "Double Standard". Someone who would honestly compare male circumcision done by a healthcare provider in a clinical setting with ritual female gential mutilation either has no idea what they're talking about, at all, or is trying to use an emotional argument and the horrors of FGM to further their cause dishonestly.
2013-09-18 06:11:57 PM  
4 votes:
1) If you haven't got the testicular fortitude to make tough decisions for your kid, you probably shouldn't reproduce in the first place.

2) If my circumcised wang was any more effective at providing sexual pleasure, my first orgasm probably would have killed me.
2013-09-18 06:11:43 PM  
4 votes:

HairBolus: Let's see how that article stands up under the general rule of thumb of "ignore pro-circumcision authors with Jewish sounding names"


Ah, open anti-semitism and racism while ignoring the content of the source cited.

Pretty classy.

MaestroJ: When one does suffer those "side effects or complications," they last for life, and those "benefits" suddenly become quite hard to justify at a logical level.


Yeah, and some people will die from an anaphylactic reaction after getting a vaccine. Most rational people don't try to get TDAP vaccines banned, however.
2013-09-18 06:03:53 PM  
4 votes:
I just wish both sides would stop making the other feel ashamed about their bodies. We have enough of that.
2013-09-18 06:00:27 PM  
4 votes:

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I'm just not really down with the idea of preventative genital mutilation. If the kid later wants to become circumcised in order to reap those medical benefits, that should be his choice. It's not like there's any rush, considering babies aren't having much sexual activity. Later in life the parents can have the sex talk, lay out both sides, and let him decide. Treat it like ear piercing. There's really no point in doing it until the child is of age where they're capable of asking about it.


First off, it's not "genital mutilation", unless you're disingenuously trying to compare it to FGM, which involves brutally removing the ability for a woman to have sexual function period.

Secondly, many of those medical benefits, including decreased chances of a UTI or Cystitis and elimination of the probability of having a phymosis or paraphymosis are bypassed in adulthood. In addition, the procedure is FAR MORE traumatic and dangerous as the child gets older, and has a higher rate of complications.
2013-09-18 05:54:51 PM  
4 votes:

Mein Fuhrer I Can Walk: As one who ended up having to undergo painful surgery to correct a stricture caused by lack of protection of the glans - I can say I am fully on the side of not having any theoretical male kids of mine circumcised.


Except that meatal stenosis is a rare but known side effect of circumcision, and is most common occurring in patients who have their circumcision performed outside of a high-volume facility by someone who is not trained as a surgeon.

I'm sorry you're one of the 0.5% of people (Not 5%, but 0.5%) who had to have corrective surgery, but your anecdote does not invalidate the informed choices of parents. Circumcision is NOT mandatory, and is only done at the request of the parents.
2013-09-18 05:48:59 PM  
4 votes:
This isn't even worth talking about.

How about you do what you're gonna do, and I do what I'm gonna do, and we not talk about it as if you have any influence on the choices I make.

Ultimately, this seems to come down to the foreskin-having guys and their girlfriends trying desperately to justify the ugliness of their penis in western society. We get it: You're self-conscious about your unattractive smeggy penis. We just don't care.
2013-09-18 05:38:23 PM  
4 votes:
Step 1 in cutting down on clutter in circumcision debate:
 Ignore any pro-circumcision author with a Jewish sounding last name.

(likewise for debate over nosejobs)
2013-09-18 05:24:18 PM  
4 votes:
Circumsized and totally ok with it.  Plus the ole lady prefers it.

Plus my "performance" is probably better, I don't need more sensitive skin, I'd last like two minutes.
2013-09-18 05:21:02 PM  
4 votes:
The author sounds circumcised.
2013-09-19 01:15:10 AM  
3 votes:
Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque:
In the same way, anti-circumcision advocates tend to see circumcision as a mutilation of a child unable to give consent, done by parents for reasons that are ultimately unjustified or unwarranted. At best it is a meaningless exercise with relatively minor health improvements, and at worst causes lifelong medical issues. There is a real "emotional obligation" here. I don't think that parts of a child's anatomy should be amputated for aesthetic reasons or potential medical complications. I wouldn't clip the skin of a child's nose to potentially lessen the risk of prostate cancer. I wouldn't cut off a child's earlobes to potentially reduce its chance of heart disease. And I wouldn't permanently scar a baby's penis to potentially reduce its chance at contracting an STD.

It's a real thing to us. It's tantamount to child abuse. If you wait until the child is old enough to have an understanding of the risks and rewards inherent in the operation, by all means let that child make the decision for themselves. If you're a thirty year-old man who wants the procedure for whatever reason, knock yourself out. I just can't in good faith pretend ...


I understand your point of view, but tell us how you feel about things like this:

i.imgur.com
or this:
i.imgur.com
or this:
i.imgur.com

or ear/lip stretching in Africa, and so on?

Granted many of those start at around 4 or 5 years old, may involve less (or greater) pain and some involve gradual changes; but children that age are no more capable of real informed consent than a baby, in fact they can say 'no' but are still put through the procedures. And except for the ear piercing these are far more 'mutilating' than circumcision, which in the vast majority of cases causes no dysfunction. (Some have told me it improves function, if you know what I mean, but that is of course anecdotal evidence)

Because obviously you're more qualified to make decisions for other children's parents than they are.
2013-09-18 09:31:52 PM  
3 votes:
Summary of events in a Fark circumcision thread:

The normal uncircumcised male - "Well, I'm glad I'm not cut"
The normal circumcised male     - "Well, I'm glad I'm cut"
A normal woman                         - "I have a preference for this style, because I've been with guys that have it"

The circumcised with a sexual dysfunction - "It's because they mutilated my penis!"
A woman that's dated a guy with a sexual dysfunction - "It's because they mutilated his penis!"

The racist crazy - "it's a Jewish conspiracy, I don't want to be like those dirty <insert racial slur here>"
The pure crazy - "It's the same as cutting off his whole penis! just like with a women in Africa! How could you do this to a child with no choice! Here's some crazy websites, sign up for my 9/11 truth meeting while you're visiting."

The troll  - "I went on the pure crazy website and I'm going to use those stats as a basis for argument, also how could you to this to your kids!"
2013-09-18 07:53:10 PM  
3 votes:
If dentists could remove wisdom teeth in early childhood with less complications than waiting until the teen years, would any of you anti-circumcision people protest saying that the decision should wait til the teen years so the kid could make an informed decision? After all, many people would not have problems if their wisdom teeth were allowed to come in. They are removed for convenience, and to prevent the possibility of having a more serious surgery later on. Researchers are looking for a way to prevent wisdom teeth from even starting, so I'm not pulling the possibility out of thin air.
I'm one of the lucky ones who never had wisdom teeth.
2013-09-18 06:29:46 PM  
3 votes:

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Whatever, man. I get that you have a bug up your ass about female genital mutilation, having a congenital case of sandy vagina yourself, but nowhere did I even bring it up except for this post. If I wanted to be borderline offensive and ignorant, I would've said something like "In female genital mutilation's defense, sewing up an eight-year-old's vagina and cutting off her clitoris is probably going to prevent some STDs down the line too, so it should be up to the parents to decide."


Hmm.

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.

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.

f.kulfoto.com
2013-09-18 06:26:53 PM  
3 votes:

Fafai: eggrolls: 1) If you haven't got the testicular fortitude to make tough decisions for your kid, you probably shouldn't reproduce in the first place.

This assumes that yours is the only correct decision. Not cutting a piece of your son's dick off is also a conscious decision, strange as it sounds (thanks, religious tradition).


It assumes nothing. If you read that particular sentence again, you may I didn't actually put a value on the pro or con side of the argument there - I just pointed out that parenthood requires you to make LOTS of hard decisions on your kids behalf. Thanks for determining my 'right' decision was in fact, the 'wrong' one. Good thing you didn't assume yours was the only correct decision, yes?
2013-09-18 06:20:55 PM  
3 votes:

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.
2013-09-18 06:18:48 PM  
3 votes:

MaestroJ: Correct, however, the foreskin has not been connected to the permanently debilitating diseases that vaccines are used to prevent. The vast majority of the world is in fact, not circumcised, yet STDs are not as prevalent in Europe or Australia like they are in the USA, yet most of them have their foreskins. It couldn't possibly because the foreskin somehow fights STDs there. Perhaps it's a sociological issue such as better sex education?


Really?

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/442617-overview
2013-09-18 06:12:58 PM  
3 votes:

hardinparamedic: First off, it's not "genital mutilation", unless you're disingenuously trying to compare it to FGM, which involves brutally removing the ability for a woman to have sexual function period.


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?
2013-09-18 06:10:03 PM  
3 votes:

profplump: That seems a bit unlikely given that huge portions of the world do not routinely circumcise children. The article doesn't make any claims on that point -- could you elaborate?


Critical Review of Circumcision from the Journal of AIDS Care, published in 2012.

Specifically, it mentions how anti-circumcision groups in the United States have tried to pass laws and restrict the insurance of people who choose to circumcise their children.

Hmm. Restrictions on choice of healthcare. Wonder who that sounds like.

www.indigojournal.com
2013-09-18 06:02:20 PM  
3 votes:

Argyle82: I lol'd at the random, self manufactured stat.... well done.

4/10


I LOL'd at you making an ass out of yourself by calling a statistic manufactured. But since you don't believe me, let's asked the Journal of AIDS Care.
2013-09-18 05:57:19 PM  
3 votes:

profplump: Is there some reason it can't be the post-pubecent male's own choice? Exactly what 7-year-olds need protection from STDs?


Circumcision performed as an adult requires general anesthesia, including the probability of being intubated, and has a severely painful recovery period, including the possibility of incontinence and having to relearn bladder control. Circumcision performed in the neonatal period has a very low rate of complications, can be done with procedural sedation meaning less risk to the patient, and has a rapid recovery time.

In addition, it's not just protection from STDs, 1/3 of uncircumcised children will suffer from some form of medical issue related to their foreskin.
2013-09-18 05:54:01 PM  
3 votes:

Fafai: HotWingConspiracy: Fafai: HotWingConspiracy: 

Why is it so hard for you foreskinists to accept that people really don't give a fark?

Obviously the author does give a fark.

That's not what the article was about.

I guess we just can't understand why people wouldn't give a fark that its acceptable to a large number of people to sever a piece of newborn baby.


Right, but you also have this notion that everyone that is circumcised is traumatized and just lying about it, no matter how many times you're told otherwise.

You could just accept it and not have any of your sons circumcised if that's your thing, but instead you act like fanatical weirdos bent on telling people how they really feel and imagining you know better.
2013-09-18 05:51:15 PM  
3 votes:

gingerjet: HotWingConspiracy: Argyle82: NEPAman: The author sounds circumcised.

This.

Keep defending your parents archaic decision when you were born, author.  Whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy.

Why is it so hard for you foreskinists to accept that people really don't give a fark?

I've found that those that obsess over this issue typically have other problems and are just looking for something to blame it on.

/and anyone who calls circumcision "mutilation" is simply not someone you can have a rational discussion with


I can't think of a better word to use than 'mutilation' when it comes to cutting off parts of a human's body for no other reason than the Jews did it thousands of years ago to keep sand out of it....
2013-09-18 05:48:04 PM  
3 votes:
Chicks dig the helmet not the anteater - it's a scientific fact.

dnrtfa
2013-09-18 05:47:12 PM  
3 votes:
As one who ended up having to undergo painful surgery to correct a stricture caused by lack of protection of the glans - I can say I am fully on the side of not having any theoretical male kids of mine circumcised.

And it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "lost sensitivity".

/author is a biased hack
2013-09-18 05:42:16 PM  
3 votes:
What a strange and completely inessential article.
2013-09-18 05:39:46 PM  
3 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: Argyle82: NEPAman: The author sounds circumcised.

This.

Keep defending your parents archaic decision when you were born, author.  Whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy.

Why is it so hard for you foreskinists to accept that people really don't give a fark?


Can't be repeated enough.

/cut
//was done as a baby and no memory of it
///don't give a flying fark
////yeah, yeah, yeah, the sex I have will never be as good as the sex you have. So you've told me for the thousandth time. I'll live.
2013-09-18 05:38:14 PM  
3 votes:
I'm finding it hard to take people seriously when they defend unnecessary surgery on newborns.
2013-09-18 05:34:36 PM  
3 votes:

Kazan: Oh look.... he's citing studies that have already been debunked.

NEXT bullshiat artist.


Which specific studies are you referring to being "debunked", and would you like to post the evidence "debunking" them since you are making that claim?
2013-09-18 05:29:51 PM  
3 votes:

NEPAman: The author sounds circumcised.


This.

Keep defending your parents archaic decision when you were born, author.  Whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy.
2013-09-18 05:24:39 PM  
3 votes:
FTA:  How did it come to this?

It's called "progress."
2013-09-19 06:18:25 PM  
2 votes:
Jill'sNipple: The point is that FGM ranges from a cut that is far less traumatic than male circumcision to something that is far worse. My position is, why the obsession with cutting on babies' genitals? I do it all together into the same category: mutilation. There's no reason for it. If an adult male decides he'd like to get rid of part of his penis, good for him. But keep your hands off the babies.


I'll bite back. When circumcision started getting compared to FGM in this thread, it was to Type 1 FGM. The worst, most heinous and horrendous kind. To say that it wasn't would make you a liar. Once that got slapped down as being the tippy-top of Douche Mountain, people started pulling back, much like you just did. "Well, I didn't really mean that kind. I was talking about one of the other kinds, you know, because definitions."

Again, my question: why are you so obsessed with cutting on babies' genitals?

Aaaand yet another hyperbolic comparison. Yes, anyone whose pro-circ out there is just a big ol' baby butcherin' pedophile! It's arguments like this that make it hard to take you seriously.
Why are YOU so obsessed with a miniscule piece of vestigal skin? Seeing as a circumcized penis is still the norm (and the majority), are you hoping to make your son's teenage years that much more awkward? Why do you hate your future teenage son?
2013-09-19 05:23:11 PM  
2 votes:

Fafai: The only people who brought up FEMALE mutilation


were the anti-circ crowd, starting with Jill'sNipple and then yourself. And then it was appropriately slapped down, and you went on the defensive and stayed there.

Fafai: That is what we believe


Belief does not make something a fact.
2013-09-19 05:10:58 PM  
2 votes:

cyberspacedout: I know an RN who works at a local hospital, has heard doctors talking parents into having this done, and he of course couldn't do anything about it.


He could go back to medical school and become a doctor.
2013-09-19 12:49:15 PM  
2 votes:

Fafai: Relatively Obscure: Fafai: Simply calling it what it is (genital mutilation, as severing a part of someone's body IS mutilation just as the foreskin is a part of your genitals) doesn't mean we're equating the severity of the two practises, kind of like how an aircraft carrier and a tricycle can both be called vehicles, despite not being the same.

Out of curiosity (not meant to pick any kind of fight, really), do you refer to ALL procedures where some part of the human body is removed as "mutilation" in general conversation?  Like, appendectomies, amputations, etc?  I mean, I don't, but I guess they'd qualify and I'm wondering if you use the term universally or just for select things.

I use it for procedures that are done unnecessarily against the participant's will.


And you know this how? I mean, we've broken down into semantics here. Why assume you know the will of a newborn any more than the pro-circ crowd? We had our son's tonsils and adenoids out two years ago when he was 5. He didn't really get a vote in that. Nothing life-threatening, really. He'd had a couple bouts of strep and the doctor suggested it. According to what we read, he could have just as easily grown up fine and dandy with them but we thought why bother putting him through strep over and over. Not that that was a given either but it was a possibility. I suppose we could have waited until he was older and let him decide, but we figured, as his parents, we know what's best for him right now. (That whole "We're 100% responsible for his care and well-being for the next 11 years, at least" thing)
I know it's fun to use the word "mutilation" as it makes a mundane practice seem so brutal, violent and horrific. It's a cheap scare tactic, but, whatevs, yo!
"Meat is Murder!"
"Abortion is Murder!"
"Circumcision is Mutilation!"
I guess it looks good on a sign.
2013-09-19 12:44:34 PM  
2 votes:

Fafai: Relatively Obscure: Fafai: Simply calling it what it is (genital mutilation, as severing a part of someone's body IS mutilation just as the foreskin is a part of your genitals) doesn't mean we're equating the severity of the two practises, kind of like how an aircraft carrier and a tricycle can both be called vehicles, despite not being the same.

Out of curiosity (not meant to pick any kind of fight, really), do you refer to ALL procedures where some part of the human body is removed as "mutilation" in general conversation?  Like, appendectomies, amputations, etc?  I mean, I don't, but I guess they'd qualify and I'm wondering if you use the term universally or just for select things.

I use it for procedures that are done unnecessarily against the participant's will.


Well, as has been posted, there are medical benefits, so circumcision is neither unnecessary or necessary, it is a benficial option. So by your definition, not mutilation. Thanks!
2013-09-19 11:24:18 AM  
2 votes:

surrybee: cyberspacedout:
OK, so I just started at the end and am reading backward through the comments here, so I may be missing something. How is it you two are able to objectively discuss an act of unnecessary surgery on a patient?

You should start at the beginning and work your way to the end. Short version: I'm a NICU nurse. I'm 100% opposed to circumcision. I refuse to assist with the procedure. Hardinparamedic here has spent the thread spewing pro-circ nonsense. He got to a particular doozy (suggesting infants are given adequate pain control) and I responded. He responded to me with a giant off topic wall, I responded briefly addressing only the topic at hand.

Staying civil is a better way to get your point across than angry hyperbole and personal attacks, so I stay civil.



Actually, he responded to you quite eloquently. Earlier upthread, you pointed out that you were an "actual RN", suggesting he was talking out of his ass, and he responded by pointing out he was also an RN. A NICU RN, to be exact. Then, when that failed, you scoffed at the idea that his hospital provided pain meds for infants. He provided the necessary information to back up his claim. I'm not sure where you see this as off topic, but good on you for being FARK obteuse!
It's great that you're anti-circ, just as it's fine that others are pro-circ. From this thread alone, it seems there's as many medical pros/cons for one as there are the other.
Also, equating the safe and surgical (in this case, "surgical" is meant to imply by a professional in a safe, sterile environment) removal of a vestigal piece of skin to mutilation of any sort is just hyperbolic and histrionic.
2013-09-19 01:07:33 AM  
2 votes:
No way did we have our son circ'd when he was a baby. No religious reason to, and I didn't want him in pain. I also don't find uncircumcised penises to be  aesthetically less attractive than cut, even though his dad is cut.  Instead, over time, we taught him to be clean and use condoms. He's grown now, and if he ever wants to get circumcised, he can make the choice himself. He's never intimated that he wants to have it done, but it should be a personal, adult decision. Easy-peasy.

/2 cents
2013-09-18 11:40:05 PM  
2 votes:
Serious question:  is this like a truther thing?

One theory of 9/11 trutherism is that it attracts people because it's imitation activism:  it allows truthers to see themselves as serious freedom-fighting activist Rage Against The Machiners, but with the comfort of focusing on a compartmentalized issue that doesn't require them to volunteer at a soup kitchen or do anything other than Photoshop red arrows on JPEGs and label them "squibs."

Is this the same for the anti-circumcision crowd?  They can get pretty frothy and incensed about the issue, and even go so far as to organize a ballot initiative now and then, but in the end it's just this isolated thing they can say they stand for, without the emotional obligation of getting incensed about a real thing like poverty.
2013-09-18 10:10:04 PM  
2 votes:

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.


Personally I think any guy who calls circumcision "genital mutilation" or equates it to female genital mutilation ought to have their penis cut off of, as a way of helping them understand the difference.
2013-09-18 08:23:10 PM  
2 votes:

Argyle82: Boojum2k: Argyle82: You have a list of favorite female fark posters on your bio.

Yep, from a long time back, from long nights on TFD. I also keep the beer/coffee list for those I disagreed with and argued with but I respect. Your profile shows a given name that may or may not be made up, a crap map, and a reminder when I look that you are, in fact, a bigot. An insecure one at that.

You're right, I'm a huge bigot, because I believe that;
Americans will defend American ways.
Jews will defend Jewish ways.
Muslims will defend Muslim ways
Athiests will defend Atheist ways
Hindus will defend Hindu ways
Christians will defend Christain ways
Mongolians will defend Mongolian ways
Djiboutis will defend Djibouti ways
Finnish will defend Finland ways,

etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum.


I'm trying to give the impression of a clear, calm, rational tone:

You're not helping people like me.

If you're going to criticize someone, do so as an individual. Don't categorize entire groups, and don't do it in the name of a cause you believe in. Trust me, when it comes to any debate, you won't only hurt your own argument, you'll hurt others who may have legitimate points, and you'll only make it last longer.
2013-09-18 08:05:26 PM  
2 votes:

Argyle82: You have a list of favorite female fark posters on your bio.


Yep, from a long time back, from long nights on TFD. I also keep the beer/coffee list for those I disagreed with and argued with but I respect. Your profile shows a given name that may or may not be made up, a crap map, and a reminder when I look that you are, in fact, a bigot. An insecure one at that.
2013-09-18 07:29:27 PM  
2 votes:

Fafai: 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.


Holy shiat you have no idea how long evolution takes, huh?
2013-09-18 07:26:27 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:44:00 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:41:56 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:26:58 PM  
2 votes:

profplump: First, there's no benefit from the procedure for the child. As a sexually active adult there may be benefits but it does no good for the children when they undergo the procedure.


Just because you keep saying that doesn't make it any more true. Let's rephrase this statement: you can't see any benefits for YOUR OWN child.

profplump: Second, I don't see how "patient who cannot respond and has a third party make medical decisions for them (infant)" is different than  "patient who cannot respond and has a third party make medical decisions for them (unconscious adult)". What am I missing?


I know you don't, or can't understand the difference between a situation which requires implied consent and informed consent.
2013-09-18 06:20:34 PM  
2 votes:

jigger: eggrolls: jigger: NEPAman: The author sounds circumcised.

Why? I'm snipped, but I'm against nonconsensual circumcision.

It's kind of hard to get an okay out of a three day old baby, and if you wait, you miss out on most of the health benefits.

Europe must be awash with diseased penis. But then again, they don't use soap.


They sure as hell don't seem much cleaner,,,

http://www.avert.org/std-statistics-worldwide.htm
2013-09-18 06:20:13 PM  
2 votes:
I didn't have the heart to circumsize my son. Nor would I pierce my infant daughters ears.  Any body modifications they can decide for themselves.
2013-09-18 06:17:22 PM  
2 votes:

hardinparamedic: Yeah, and some people will die from an anaphylactic reaction after getting a vaccine. Most rational people don't try to get TDAP vaccines banned, however.


Correct, however, the foreskin has not been connected to the permanently debilitating diseases that vaccines are used to prevent. The vast majority of the world is in fact, not circumcised, yet STDs are not as prevalent in Europe or Australia like they are in the USA, yet most of them have their foreskins. It couldn't possibly because the foreskin somehow fights STDs there. Perhaps it's a sociological issue such as better sex education?
2013-09-18 06:13:26 PM  
2 votes:

jigger: NEPAman: The author sounds circumcised.

Why? I'm snipped, but I'm against nonconsensual circumcision.


It's kind of hard to get an okay out of a three day old baby, and if you wait, you miss out on most of the health benefits.
2013-09-18 06:02:29 PM  
2 votes:
hardinparamedic:

Yeah, no. No it's not. It's not quite as simple as you make it out to be.

As long as male circumcision is done in a manner that is humane and safe, such as under sedation or general anesthesia, I really don't have a problem with it. It should be the parents personal choice.


And that's the most that needs saying.
2013-09-18 06:00:33 PM  
2 votes:
And the same thing is happening with vaccination.
2013-09-18 05:54:17 PM  
2 votes:

profplump: hardinparamedic: It should be the parents personal choice.

Is there some reason it can't be the post-pubecent male's own choice? Exactly what 7-year-olds need protection from STDs?


Because it's memorable when you're an adult. You don't remember it if it's done as an infant.

I am THANKFUL that my parents made that choice for me, because now I have a beautiful, much-loved penis and I didn't have to undergo any pain to get it. At least, none that I personally remember.
2013-09-18 05:50:28 PM  
2 votes:
I always felt that it was up to the kid when he got older.  I guess saying:  "My body my right" is cool but saying: "my cock my tip" isn't so cool.
2013-09-18 05:42:01 PM  
2 votes:

Fafai: Obviously the author does give a fark.


Actually, had you RTFA, you'd have realized it was calling out people who are using anti-abortion like guro tactics, appeals to fear, and pseudoscience to argue against circumcision, even going as far as to honestly compare it to FGM.
2013-09-18 05:38:26 PM  
2 votes:

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.


Yeah, no. No it's not. It's not quite as simple as you make it out to be.

As long as male circumcision is done in a manner that is humane and safe, such as under sedation or general anesthesia, I really don't have a problem with it. It should be the parents personal choice.
2013-09-18 05:35:37 PM  
2 votes:
How about just leaving the damn kids penises alone whydoncha?
2013-09-18 05:33:55 PM  
2 votes:
circumcision: the topic that makes men as shrill and hysterical as feminists
2013-09-19 10:10:04 PM  
1 votes:
If most circumcised men are happy to be circumcised, that's great.  Not all are happy though, and I and I think most intact men would consider their genitals imperfect if they had to be circumcised.  I'd pay a year's salary rather than be circumcised.  It's not a huge amount of skin, but it makes a big difference.

Why can't we let everyone decide for themselves whether or not they wants parts removed from their genitals?  It's not like it can't wait.  There are only two countries in the world where more than 50% of newborn boys are circumcised - Israel and (probably) the USA.  Other countries circumcise, but later in life, usually anywhere from around seven years old to puberty or adolescence.

If our son wants to be circumcised when he's 18 (16 if he knows what he's doing), I'll pay for it and help him find a good surgeon.  Until then, he stays intact.  His body - his decision.  If he wants to be circumcised later, it's easy to fix - safer, less painful, and better cosmetic results.  If we'd had him circumcised, and he wanted to be intact, it's a problem.
2013-09-19 06:51:16 PM  
1 votes:

Boojum2k: Fafai: You got me.

I'll note you haven't done this, and while I disagree with your stance as expressed, you have not been one of the extremists. Some issues with your semantics, but you haven't gone batshiat like so many on your side have.


Thanks, Boojum! Gonna cut out while we're here on this high note before things get ugly again. Peace.
2013-09-19 06:39:36 PM  
1 votes:
The hilarious part of all of this is that the article- while clearly written by someone who was pro-circ but backed that position up with facts- was not primarily about the subject of circumcision so much as the anti-circ movement being one of the most successful and prolific groups of anti-fact, poorly-sourced-statistic-quoting trolls on the internet to date, and ones who will bring up not-at-all-equivalent practices like FGM to try to scare you into siding with them.

And fark if this thread didn't prove him entirely right on all counts.

If you cannot find reliable science to support your position, science is not conspiring against you.
2013-09-19 06:20:26 PM  
1 votes:
Fafai: You guys are just nitpicking now.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA.......HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....Oh, wait. You were serious, weren't you?
2013-09-19 05:57:50 PM  
1 votes:

Jill'sNipple: I wouldn't say you have done a good job of slapping down anyone.


It's the extra foreskin protecting your face :)

As hardinparamedic posted earlier:
http://www.cmaj.ca/content/early/2012/07/09/cmaj.111372.full.pdf

Now, you may have refused to look, but the information was presented in this thread. Like others, you may refuse to read it and thus keep claiming you haven't "seen a good reason" but it's still there.
2013-09-19 05:57:29 PM  
1 votes:

Jill'sNipple: I wouldn't say you have done a good job of slapping down anyone. I haven't seen a good reason, in this thread or elsewhere, to allow parents to whittle on their children's genitals without it being medically necessary. Give me a good reason. I haven't seen it.


As soon as you produce a good reason NOT to. Aside from a "study" based soley on conjecture, your own personal aesthetic or some rabid and hyperbolic comparison to ACTUAL mutilation (we're talking the implied meaning, here. Semantic arguments are SO yesterday)

P.S.- The "slapping down" he was referring to was the insane comparison of circumcision to FGM. I don't think he thinks he won the internet or anything.
2013-09-19 05:42:00 PM  
1 votes:

Fafai: You mean besides the blood and tears and screaming? That you are cutting off a part of his dick shoving a steel spike into his arm should clue you in on whether he wants that to happen or not.


Should we stop vaccinating too, Ms McCarthy?
2013-09-19 05:17:17 PM  
1 votes:

cyberspacedout: I'm just always flabbergasted to see medical professionals in this country talking about infant circumcision so calmly -


And here the rest of us are just as (if not more) flabbergasted to watch the anti-circ crowd rabidly (and with a straight face) compare circumcision to FGM.
2013-09-19 05:13:31 PM  
1 votes:

PunGent: Burden's on the proponents of the procedure to show it doesn't actually, you know, kill people.


The traditional "Moving of the Goalposts" Am I being trolled? If so, I'm flattered but I should point out that I'm happily married.
welcometofark.jpg

Anywhoo...You initially stated that circumcision kills "about 100 babies per year" (I'm probably paraphrasing) so I asked what your source was. I had done a quick Google search and could only come up with biased sites and a mommy blog that contained, as it turns out, some of the same material you cited as a source. In checking your source, I discovered it's entirely based on conjecture and guess work. Since you have yet to cite any actual facts to back your theory up, I have no need to prove mine other than "cuz I said so!" Can you prove to me circumcision DOES kill newborns?
As for bringing your "lawyer friend" in as anything other than anecdotal, you DO realize lawyers will sue ANYone for ANYthing, right? I mean, that's kinda their job. Well, the sleazy "Better Call Saul" types, anyways. Wasn't there a story about a grown, healthy man who sued (and won, I believe) his parents and the doctor who'd performed his circumcision? Way to totes not abuse the legal system, there! Instead of seeking mental help for a lfe spent obsessing over a ring of skin smaller than a wedding band, lets SUE! Also, why would there need to be lawyers specifically for this type of thing? Wouldn't it fall under "medical malpractice"? Well, with so many lawyers at work today, I guess if you can't find work, you invent work
2013-09-19 04:54:23 PM  
1 votes:

surrybee: I'm 100% opposed to infant circumcision without any clear medical indication. Do I really need to explain why? It's cosmetic surgery performed on an infant. I'm my son's guardian, not his owner. His penis, his choice. If he really wants his foreskin removed, I'll be happy to pay for it when he can weigh the pros and cons and make his own decision.

The other pro-circ nonsense:

-lowered risk of STDs. Studies have gone both ways. I don't have a link but there was a study done by the Navy that showed no correlation between circumcision and decreased STDs. Even if the Africa studies don't suffer from investigator bias, or other issues, which I believe they likely do, they fail to account for why Europe, with far lower circumcision rates, also have far lower STD rates than the US.


I don't remember studies going both ways in this thread. So far, despite a number of anti-circumcision Farkers, the only peer-review studies from medical literature that have been posted have all indicated lower risks from STDs. As for comparing Europe v. US, well, there are number of confounding factors as I'm sure you're aware already (insurance, for example).

They were also cut short.
My inner 12-year-old LOL'd.

In short, the Africa studies are interesting but fail to prove anything. The most they do is point out the need for further studies.
Why does a randomized trial in Africa fail to prove anything?

And you know what's more effective at preventing the spread of HIV and is widely and very cheaply available in the US? Condoms.
Yay condoms, I'm all for condoms. The thing is, I don't mind 2 levels of protection - like seatbelts + air bags. Don't the studies conducted in the US and Europe show that, despite the wide availability of condoms, circumcision is still protective?

-the FGM hyperbole. I'm not saying FGM isn't horrid, but not all FGM is as he describes. A symbolic pricking of the female genitals is also termed FGM and illegal in this country. Why do we refuse to allow the symbolic pin prick of a female baby's genitalia, but we have no problem with the symbolic removal of functional tissue on a male baby? It's hypocrisy. (I'm obviously not saying we should allow FGM. We shouldn't allow either male or female symbolic genital cutting.)
If we are all (including  Fafai) against FGM, and can all agree that it's pointless and not at all the same as male circumcision, then perhaps both sides of this debate could agree that it's not relevent to the topic at hand and stop bringing it up when discussing male circumcision in first-world countries?

-1/3 of uncircumcised boys don't have foreskin-related issues. I've never read a number nearly that high. I have read many studies about complications in uncircumcised infants and toddlers because of their foreskins. None of them spell out how many parents were wrongly taught to retract the foreskin to clean under it. It's this retraction that allows bacteria in and causes UTIs. It's this retraction that tears the frenulum and causes p ...
Hardinparamedic referenced peer-review literature. You've actually suggested a mechanism for why this can happen (I was taught, way back in the dark ages when I was a new parent, that you're supposed to retract & clean - you're saying that's changed?). He brought this up in response to some comments that there were complications associated with circumcision. The adverse effects of non-circumcision may be to some degree preventable; this doesn't alter the fact that they exist. The next step is to assess the frequency of the risks on both sides - that's what the medical literature shows, using statistics. Maybe there's some literature that shows education v. circumcision v. control?

That's all I've got for now. My son has awoken from his nap and is calling for me. No doubt he's having some kind of foreskin problem.
Nope - he's suffering from a lack of sarcasm. Do you think you can help him with that? :)
2013-09-19 04:47:30 PM  
1 votes:

PunGent: lawyer buddy of mine


So FOAF is your source? No credible evidence, just somebody whose existence we should take on faith?

PunGent: Guess they're in on the "conspiracy"


They have not yet produced a recommendation, and that's the best you've got? Dude, first rule of holes, learn it.

Come back when you have a shred of actual evidence, a sourced peer-reviewed study showing deaths from circumcisions, an actual conclusion by the CDC, anything.
2013-09-19 02:49:09 PM  
1 votes:

surrybee: A symbolic pricking of the female genitals is also termed FGM and illegal in this country.


I think this may be one of my favorite parts of this whole argument.

Intactivists: Circumcision is EXACTLY like FGM!!
The Rest of the World: No, not it's not and you're kind of a douche for suggesting it.
Intactivists: Yes it is!! See how they both share the same definition?
The Rest of the World: So it's a semantic argument you're after?
Intacitivists: What!? I never said it was like THAT kind of FGM. I meant it was more like THIS kind of FGM. Ya know, the other kind, the kind that's being proposed to hopefully meet the symbolic function in order to get certain cultures to stop using the Really! Bad! Kind! Think of the children!! Why do you hate children!?
http://www.prowomanprolife.ca/2010/05/12/the-gentler-side-of-female- ge nital-mutilation/
FTFA:
"Some physicians ... advocate only pricking or incising the clitoral skin as sufficient to satisfy cultural requirements. This is no more of an alteration than ear piercing. ...[T]he ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting. There is reason to believe that offering such a compromise may build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities, save some girls from undergoing disfiguring and life-threatening procedures in their native countries and play a role in the eventual eradication of FGC."
I should note this recommendation is currently illegal in the U.S.


Does this mean I advocate Type IV FGM? Not even close. The entire process sickens me but, at the very least, it sounds like someone's trying to move towards ending it entirely. Sorry, but trying to compare circumcision to ANY type of FGM is sick, stupid and entirely hyperbolic.
2013-09-19 01:45:21 PM  
1 votes:

PunGent: The burden is on those proposing the operation to show that it's helpful, on average.


Done already, in this thread.

PunGent: Now, find ONE reputable study that says no infant deaths occur as a result of circumcision.


And now you descend deeper into conspiracy theorist territory. No reputable study has shown any deaths at all, it's not listed in any CDC or similar site I've checked, and the only counter references are back to the unsourced study from your previous link, that you're unwilling to defend anymore.
2013-09-19 01:39:06 PM  
1 votes:

PunGent: The burden is on those proposing the operation to show that it's helpful, on average.

How so? It seems there's just as much burden (if not more, given that statistical fact that more people choose circumcision) to prove that's it's NOT helpful.

Now, find ONE reputable study that says no infant deaths occur as a result of circumcision.
Just one, and I'll concede the argument.

I will, just as soon as you can find me a study NOT based on conjecture, speculation and guess work.

I'll wait :) Me too :)
2013-09-19 01:30:55 PM  
1 votes:

Fafai: I'll just end this by saying the majority of people who still do this to their kids are affiliated with religions that historically practised it, and the origins of the procedure are abhorrent. All this medical benefit nonsense came after the fact so that people could continue feeling good about their own Penises. the benefits dont make sense because babies dont have sex. it's all tradition/cosmetic and that is no reason to be slicing up infants.

So, based on the definition of the word "majority", it's safe to assume that both my father and I could be inculded in that number? Neither of us have any religious affiliations and, to be perfectly honest, we (My wife and I) had our son circumsized on a purely aesthetic basis.

PunGent: You DO understand doctors aren't required to report circumcision mortality, right?

Best you're EVER going to get is an estimate, until you convince doctors to give up the info...until then, safest presumption is they've got something to hide.

That's true of ANY profession, not just doctors, by the way...
Cops withholding stats on brutality complaints?  You bet there's a problem.



And YOU understand that if we're going to base our arguments strictly off conjecture, I can find as many studies claiming that no infant deaths occur as a result of circumcision and that the medical benefits FAR outweigh the disadvantages.

"Though I have no actual proof, I can surmise that 97.2% of circumcisions result in larger than average penis growth"
See how that works?
2013-09-19 01:29:23 PM  
1 votes:

PunGent: You DO understand doctors aren't required to report circumcision mortality, right?


Serious tinfoil thinking there. So if an infant dies while being circumcised, they get a mulligan? The parents are told nothing, no cause of death on the certificate, nothing?

Bullshiat.
2013-09-19 12:45:03 PM  
1 votes:

Relatively Obscure: Out of curiosity (not meant to pick any kind of fight, really), do you refer to ALL procedures where some part of the human body is removed as "mutilation" in general conversation? Like, appendectomies, amputations, etc?


Actually, the anti-circumcision crowd occasionally refers to circumcision as an "amputation."

Maybe they all had prehensile foreskins.  I hear that Lord Nelson lost his foreskin in the Battle of Trafalgar.
2013-09-19 12:23:06 PM  
1 votes:

Fafai: Simply calling it what it is (genital mutilation, as severing a part of someone's body IS mutilation just as the foreskin is a part of your genitals) doesn't mean we're equating the severity of the two practises, kind of like how an aircraft carrier and a tricycle can both be called vehicles, despite not being the same.


Out of curiosity (not meant to pick any kind of fight, really), do you refer to ALL procedures where some part of the human body is removed as "mutilation" in general conversation?  Like, appendectomies, amputations, etc?  I mean, I don't, but I guess they'd qualify and I'm wondering if you use the term universally or just for select things.
2013-09-19 12:10:36 PM  
1 votes:

PunGent: Would you have any anti-circumcision peer-reviewed studies to cite? Or can you provide more information about why you are 100% opposed to circumcision (I'm assuming you mean infant circumcision without any clear medical indication, of course)?

Best I could find: http://www.mensstudies.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/?p=886c0b2db93c46 2 0a7ac9ea4cc58ae3e&pi=5

I'll have to dig into the methodology a bit, if I get time later.



That's an interesting source (Thymos - Journal of Boyhood Studies, published by Men's Studies Press). I had never heard of it before.

Founded in 1992, the Men's Studies Press (MSP) is a small independent publisher dedicated to the dissemination and promotion of men's studies scholars' work.

"THYMOS is committed to being international in scope and will solicit manuscripts from a variety of disciplines, including sociology, developmental psychology, sexology, psychoanalytic studies, ethnography and ethnology, history and historiography, cultural studies, literature, philosophy, pedagogy, and clinical and community health-care practice."



That's an interesting range of topics for one journal to publish in. They must be well-funded to keep editors on staff with expertise in so many unrelated areas.

I don't have an account with them, and I'm not really willing to spend $15 on this - when you do look into the methodology, could you post a few of the relevant paragraphs? What data source, how did they determine that circumcision was the cause of death, funding source(s)?
2013-09-19 11:27:36 AM  
1 votes:

PunGent: maelstrom0370: PunGent: dbaggins: 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.

human genes do a lot of things that we don't care for or are no longer biologically relevant.    At this point foreskin is vestigial.   You can take it or leave it, up to your style preferences.

With only about a hundred dead babies per year, in the U.S., from botched circumcision.

A small price to pay for style, I'm sure...


I'm curious about your source. A quick Google only turns up biased websites (the "Intaction" movement) and a mommy blog full of conjecture and "we think/can assume"

http://www.mensstudies.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/?p=886c0b2db93c4 62 0a7ac9ea4cc58ae3e&pi=5



FTFA: Circumcision-related mortality rates are not known with certainty; this study estimates the scale of this problem

Gotcha! So you had no more luck than I did in finding actual numbers. Thanks! Just checking :)
2013-09-19 11:07:26 AM  
1 votes:

Moonlightfox: For the folks mentioning Africa:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlsUg0sdAtE

the South Africa study by the numbers:
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html

For those of you still arguing that MGM is a non issue because FGM exists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98f3IavuEgQ

For those of you saying the prepuce has no purpose, doesn't matter, or "funnels disease into your peehole" like one moron posted, watch this (medical-grade nsfw material) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_dzeDvx2QA


And before any of this information should come the staple pro-choice mantra: my body, my decision.


hardinparamedicgives peer-reviewed study after peer-reviewed study. You give . . . three youtube videos and a site that presents no evidence of its own, just a poor critique of an actual, case-control, randomized study. The site's main critique seems to be that the people in the study were not a random sample of the population. At worst, if this were true, then this would mean that male circumcision was effective among a subset of the population. It would not necessarily imply that it was ineffective among the rest of the population.

What actual information are you planning to provide parents facing this choice? I'm talking peer-reviewed journal articles, not blogs or youtube videos.
hej
2013-09-19 07:40:26 AM  
1 votes:

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.


It's more like when my parents had my tonsils removed.
2013-09-19 12:53:50 AM  
1 votes:
Why do people keep comparing the most invasive type of female circumcision with the least invasive type of male circumcision?

Yall do realize there's more than one type of both male and female circumcision, right?
2013-09-19 12:52:58 AM  
1 votes:

haolegirl: I haven't read all the comments, but has anyone yet pointed out that's it's not medically necessary? In fact if you have a boy, and you're on welfare they won't pay for it because it's an option, and not even recommended.


It just clicked for me why there are so many uncut black guys...
2013-09-19 12:10:16 AM  
1 votes:
hardinparamedic: It shouldn't be done at home, or in a pediatrician's office. (I've actually seen two patients almost die in the last four years from botched circumcisions and uncontrolled hemorrhage.)

What's the general rule on hospitals and religious circumcisions?  Will they allow an outside mohel to perform one within a surgical area?  I've only ever been to one bris and it was in someone's home.

I'm pretty sure Manischewitz causes more pain than it blocks, though.  Seriously, why traumatize the kid twice?
2013-09-18 11:42:33 PM  
1 votes:

surrybee: You give versed and fentanyl for circumcisions?


Our facility is attempting to attain magnet status, so they're pretty progressive and aggressive in their pain control protocols and policies, and much of the pain control policies and standing orders in place are Nurse and Mid-level driven. In NICU and PICU patients, their threshold to administer is pretty low since these patients have concurrent issues. (We don't do well babies/regular OB, period.)

Surgery has a policy that if they're getting a circ (we regularly see kids 2-3 years old who are getting them due to continual UTI or other issues), they do it in general surgery or starlight. They'll snow them, drop an LMA, and keep them snowed through the procedure.

EMLA, if USED CORRECTLY, can provide some pretty powerful pain control (I've seen ER fellows and attendings use it on I&Ds for cutaneous abscesses)

surrybee: The simple fact is that the vast majority of infants who are circumcised do not receive that kind of pain relief.


No, you're absolutely right. I'm sure as a NICU RN, you have the problem working with older neonatologists with the prevailing belief that premies/newborn infants don't feel pain. One of our sister facilities that handles the high risk OB/Delivery deals with this issue all the time - we will see patients on high frequency oscillatory ventilation who are taching away at 180/190 and the doctors still won't order pain control.

I personally think that if you're circumcising a newborn child, you should do so in a manner that the child feels absolutely nothing. It shouldn't be done at home, or in a pediatrician's office. (I've actually seen two patients almost die in the last four years from botched circumcisions and uncontrolled hemorrhage.)
2013-09-18 11:30:13 PM  
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-09-18 09:54:32 PM  
1 votes:

Moonlightfox: "funnels disease into your peehole" like one moron posted


Aww, look, someone's mad. Normally I would just say my work here is done and move along, but I feel like I should point out that I was responding to that idiotic statement that circumcision is the equivalent of cutting off a baby's ears so they wouldn't have to wash behind them. I was f*cking with you intactivists while pointing out the stupidity of alt boy's claim.

I got a couple bites from it, so meh, it was semi successful. In the future, please feel free to get upset with anything I say. Your tears are delicious.
2013-09-18 09:42:33 PM  
1 votes:
I am not going into my thoughts on circumcision itself.

The point of the article is how the Internet gets flooded with false facts, exuberantly exaggerated stories, made up statistics, and fake counter-studies in order to add to the confusion. The Internet has made it so murky to find the truth and get legitimate questions to answers that it keeps fueling the debate.

Personally, I think the study needs to be done with more factors being considered to clarify once and for all whether it's really needed or not. I see both sides, and even have questions myself. It doesn't matter for me though as I had no choice as most men in the US, and I can't have kids of my own so it's not a decision I will ever have to make.
2013-09-18 09:12:44 PM  
1 votes:

PunGent: dbaggins: 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.

human genes do a lot of things that we don't care for or are no longer biologically relevant.    At this point foreskin is vestigial.   You can take it or leave it, up to your style preferences.

With only about a hundred dead babies per year, in the U.S., from botched circumcision.

A small price to pay for style, I'm sure...



I'm curious about your source. A quick Google only turns up biased websites (the "Intaction" movement) and a mommy blog full of conjecture and "we think/can assume"
2013-09-18 09:01:38 PM  
1 votes:

dbaggins: 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.

human genes do a lot of things that we don't care for or are no longer biologically relevant.    At this point foreskin is vestigial.   You can take it or leave it, up to your style preferences.


With only about a hundred dead babies per year, in the U.S., from botched circumcision.

A small price to pay for style, I'm sure...
2013-09-18 08:34:32 PM  
1 votes:

Jill'sNipple: The double standard on this is pretty crazy. Some extremely well-educated female friends feel completely comfortable advocating for circumcision based entirely on aesthetics. These same friends would be horrified if some guy said he wouldn't sleep with them unless they had a little nip-and-tuck on their own undercarriage for the same reason. I think either way is insane.

/circumcised
//not that that is relevant


Except that FGM isn't a "little nip-and-tuck on their own undercarriage."

First world people comparisons to third world problems.  There is no comparison between male circumcision and FGM, at all.  None.  Stop even thinking there is.

That being said, why the hell can't we just leave our kid's genitals alone?  As long as they can eliminate waste and there's no immediate health issues, let it be until the kid is 18 and makes their own decisions.
2013-09-18 08:33:05 PM  
1 votes:

dbaggins: human genes do a lot of things that we don't care for or are no longer biologically relevant.    At this point foreskin is vestigial.   You can take it or leave it, up to your style preferences.


There are noted sexual functions to the foreskin. It is indeed not required to have sex, but it does have use. The problem with "leave it," is that it can't really come back, and the negative effects are for life. The possible problems with "take it" are not observed to cause any problems worldwide, and they're easily preventable.
2013-09-18 08:29:55 PM  
1 votes:

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.


human genes do a lot of things that we don't care for or are no longer biologically relevant.    At this point foreskin is vestigial.   You can take it or leave it, up to your style preferences.
2013-09-18 08:21:45 PM  
1 votes:

Boojum2k: Quinsisdos: Shostie: This was a fun thread.

I know, right? The fact a pro-circumcision lobby exists makes my farking skin crawl.

/Would rather suck on an uncut dick
//Picked a guy with good dick hygene

How many did you go through before finding the clean guy? Or did you just get lucky?


I was actually about to ask that.

I envision it went something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6eTTaY1a6M

/probably nsfw
2013-09-18 08:20:09 PM  
1 votes:

Argyle82: Jews will defend Jewish ways.


You've yet to demonstrate any of those authors were Jewish, or are of Jewish descent. That's the hillarious thing here, despite claiming otherwise based on their names.

For someone who's NOT a bigot, you sure are going a long way to justify using racial and ethnic stereotypes about Jews.
2013-09-18 08:18:40 PM  
1 votes:

Argyle82: You're right, I'm a huge bigot, because I believe that

If you're Jewish, you're more likely to conduct/make up research that supports your outdated religious ritual, to defend it.

FTFY with your own statement.
2013-09-18 08:18:22 PM  
1 votes:

Jill'sNipple: Look, you're welcome to get all sexually excited about this issue, misquote folks and troll the hell out of this thread, but WOULD YOU PLEASE START SPELLING 'GENITAL' CORRECTLY? I should have known that someone who's too stupid to learn how to clean his own penis without cutting part of it off would also be too stupid to spell the basic terms pertaining to what is apparently your favorite topic.


Well, at least we know that iphone autocorrect transposing the I in genital makes you froth at the mouth.

Had I actually any desire to troll you (Which you seem to be doing yourself, since you're ignoring the substance of the post to nit-pick at spelling errors), at least I know how to set off pedantic OCD attacks of impotent rage upon the internet from this point forward.

Also, how would I have any control over whether I was circumcised or not? I'm curious how your insult has any bearing on this discussion?
2013-09-18 08:12:05 PM  
1 votes:

Argyle82: hardinparamedic: Argyle82: Nope, not being anti-Semitic at all.  If you know anything about linguistics, you'll easily be able to determine which last names are more likely to be Jewish.

If you're Jewish, you're more likely to conduct/make up research that supports your outdated religious ritual, to defend it.  Just as if you're circumcised, you're more likely to try to defend it.  It's human nature to be illogical to justify your being and your ways.

Yep. You're not being bigoted and anti-semetic at all.

All those jews just "stick together" because their names "sound jewish", and they all falsify research to "justify" their "rituals". 

Oh, you do know that being "Jewish" doesn't make someone a member of the Jewish faith, nor does it make them apt to "lie" for other Jews, right? I mean, you MIGHT sound like a bigot if you tried to promote that idea, so I can see where that silly notion might come from.

Get help.  Bye.


He's right, you know.  You look like a real asshole right now.
2013-09-18 08:09:51 PM  
1 votes:

hardinparamedic: Jill'sNipple: I oppose genital mutilation for either sex, and never said the harmful effects were the same. Is that too murky for you? Or do you want to make more fake quotes and flag them with my name?

Circumcision is not gential mutilation. It IS, however, a medical procedure done with the intent of decreasing the chance of STDs and UTI, decreasing the chance of complications of having a foreskin, and NOT done to prevent someone from having sex. The other is done with the express intent and purpose of mutilating and eliminating the ability for the female to have sex.

It's not the same, even by the most remote attempt to make it such.


Look, you're welcome to get all sexually excited about this issue, misquote folks and troll the hell out of this thread, but WOULD YOU PLEASE START SPELLING 'GENITAL' CORRECTLY? I should have known that someone who's too stupid to learn how to clean his own penis without cutting part of it off would also be too stupid to spell the basic terms pertaining to what is apparently your favorite topic.
2013-09-18 08:00:30 PM  
1 votes:

Argyle82: Nope, not being anti-Semitic at all.  If you know anything about linguistics, you'll easily be able to determine which last names are more likely to be Jewish.

If you're Jewish, you're more likely to conduct/make up research that supports your outdated religious ritual, to defend it.  Just as if you're circumcised, you're more likely to try to defend it.  It's human nature to be illogical to justify your being and your ways.


Yep. You're not being bigoted and anti-semetic at all.

All those jews just "stick together" because their names "sound jewish", and they all falsify research to "justify" their "rituals". 

Oh, you do know that being "Jewish" doesn't make someone a member of the Jewish faith, nor does it make them apt to "lie" for other Jews, right? I mean, you MIGHT sound like a bigot if you tried to promote that idea, so I can see where that silly notion might come from.
2013-09-18 08:00:11 PM  
1 votes:

Argyle82: If you're Jewish, you're more likely to conduct/make up research


Yep, bigot through and through.
2013-09-18 07:58:05 PM  
1 votes:

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: You must have a pretty low opinion of Fark and its community if it's unthinkable that somebody new would sign up.


On the contrary. I've been around long enough to know when someone doth protest too much about being new after saying something blatantly trolling.
2013-09-18 07:55:01 PM  
1 votes:

Argyle82: Labeled now as "Bigot"

Really?

Repeated from HairBolus
Let's see how that article stands up under the general rule of thumb of "ignore pro-circumcision authors with Jewish sounding names"

Review: a critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision for HIV prevention in developed countries.

Morris BJ, Bailey RC, Klausner JD, Leibowitz A, Wamai RG, Waskett JH, Banerjee J, Halperin DT, Zoloth L, Weiss HA, Hankins CA.


Please demonstrate that each individual person is both Jewish, and that their Jewish faith influenced their findings on that research study.

Otherwise, it's pretty safe to call you a bigot considering you're using anti-semitistic "Jewish Conspiracy" talking points.
2013-09-18 07:54:54 PM  
1 votes:

Jill'sNipple: I oppose genital mutilation for either sex


Which is cool of you, but the thread is about circumcision, not genital mutilation.
2013-09-18 07:53:28 PM  
1 votes:

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: You're projecting so hard this thread just went into CinemaScope.


Says the person who made an account seven days ago, and who's name follows the exact same syntax as other, well known political thread trolls on FARK.
2013-09-18 07:52:23 PM  
1 votes:

Jill'sNipple: I oppose genital mutilation for either sex, and never said the harmful effects were the same. Is that too murky for you? Or do you want to make more fake quotes and flag them with my name?


Circumcision is not gential mutilation. It IS, however, a medical procedure done with the intent of decreasing the chance of STDs and UTI, decreasing the chance of complications of having a foreskin, and NOT done to prevent someone from having sex. The other is done with the express intent and purpose of mutilating and eliminating the ability for the female to have sex.

It's not the same, even by the most remote attempt to make it such.
2013-09-18 07:49:41 PM  
1 votes:

Fafai: I'm done with you. You're farking crazy or you're trolling. I'm going with the former. Get help. Learn what words mean.


media.tumblr.com

Yes. Because I point out my position with actual research and position statements by medical groups, and refuse to address stupidity seriously, I'm "crazy or trolling".

i.imgur.com
2013-09-18 07:46:59 PM  
1 votes:

Argyle82: I'm sorry, I missed the part in the research written by Jewish doctors that cutting off a part of the body is good for you.  Can you summarize the part where it says, as you claim, that 1/3rd of men with foreskin (which, by the way, most of the world has their foreskin), will have "medical problems" because of having said foreskin?


Oh, this one is good. Please demonstrate that any of the authors in those studies have been influenced by Judaism (or are even Jewish), and you're totally not being anti-semitic and/or racist by using stereotypes attached to their names to infer that?

Argyle82: Also, it's somewhat disturbing that you're so gung-ho about cutting babies.


Actually, I've said repeatedly it should be an informed decision made by parents of that child, in conjunction with their doctor. Please quote where I've been "gung ho" about it.

Argyle82: You seem genuinely excited about the procedure.  You've posted in this thread like 30 times, citing some random, non-related studies, because, because AIDS IN AFRICA!!!!


I enjoy pointing out pseudoscience on the internet, and have nothing better to do than enjoy my Redd's Apple Ale and argue with a pedantic troll like yourself tonight.
2013-09-18 07:44:06 PM  
1 votes:

12349876: I want your skull: 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.

Except instead of funneling sound to your earhole, foreskin funnels diseases to your peehole?

Which is why the Europeans and non-Muslim/WorstKorean Asians went extinct.  STDs took them all out about 50 years ago.  If only they had circumcisions.


Yep, because diseases don't gain any advantage by not killing their host.  All STDs lead to immediate death.

\See how that feels?
2013-09-18 07:42:26 PM  
1 votes:

Argyle82: in the research written by Jewish doctors


Labeled now as "Bigot"
2013-09-18 07:38:27 PM  
1 votes:

Fafai: You're delusional. Look at you, ready to slap that straw an argument onto anyone who disagrees in any capacity. I even specifically said it's not the same thing up thread.


The only time I mentioned it in regards to you was here.

You actually brought up FGM for the first time in this post, in which you stated that it was similar.
2013-09-18 07:28:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:26:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:17:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:16:44 PM  
1 votes:
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 07:15:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:10:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:10:15 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:04:02 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:02:38 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:00:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:56:51 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:56:17 PM  
1 votes:

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


[Citation Needed, you keep repeating that.]
2013-09-18 06:51:43 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:45:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:43:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:36:52 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:33:16 PM  
1 votes:
profplump: We don't give infants pain medication or heavy sedation, but since we have no way to measure pain objectively -- only by patient self-reporting -- that doesn't seem like a reliable statistic to compare between adults and infants.

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.
2013-09-18 06:26:51 PM  
1 votes:

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.


i1.kym-cdn.com
2013-09-18 06:24:59 PM  
1 votes:
How many people have to believe that childhood circumcision is bad before it stops being fringe? Most of the world?
2013-09-18 06:22:14 PM  
1 votes:

jigger: You're the one that said if they can't consent, that's what makes it ok.


images.sodahead.com 

Actually, I said unless a baby can give informed consent on medical procedures, that duty falls to the parents. 

Unless you're a republican, rape isn't a medical procedure, bucko.
2013-09-18 06:19:15 PM  
1 votes:

HairBolus: hardinparamedic: I LOL'd at you making an ass out of yourself by calling a statistic manufactured. But since you don't believe me, let's asked the Journal of AIDS Care.

Let's see how that article stands up under the general rule of thumb of "ignore pro-circumcision authors with Jewish sounding names"

Review: a critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision for HIV prevention in developed countries.

Morris BJ, Bailey RC, Klausner JD, Leibowitz A, Wamai RG, Waskett JH, Banerjee J, Halperin DT, Zoloth L, Weiss HA, Hankins CA.


Itstimetostopposting.jpg
2013-09-18 06:17:24 PM  
1 votes:

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: hardinparamedic: First off, it's not "genital mutilation", unless you're disingenuously trying to compare it to FGM, which involves brutally removing the ability for a woman to have sexual function period.

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?


No it's not.

It's socially accepted and most people don't care about the drawbacks, if any.
2013-09-18 06:17:15 PM  
1 votes:
Nothing like a circumcision thread. NOTHING.
2013-09-18 06:15:38 PM  
1 votes:

eggrolls: jigger: NEPAman: The author sounds circumcised.

Why? I'm snipped, but I'm against nonconsensual circumcision.

It's kind of hard to get an okay out of a three day old baby, and if you wait, you miss out on most of the health benefits.


Europe must be awash with diseased penis. But then again, they don't use soap.
2013-09-18 06:15:00 PM  
1 votes:
An old girlfriend of mine from college went the full mommy route, had 3 boys and somewhere along the way became an intactivist. Recently she decided that she wanted to go back to school to become a doctor. She is also anti vaccine as well. Normally I ignore her posts on those topics, however she seems to get smacked down on a fairly regular basis by her professors and actual doctors. Rather fun to hear her rant about how she knows better than these people.
2013-09-18 06:12:55 PM  
1 votes:

jigger: But not the baby's.


Until you find out a way to give a baby the ability to understand and give informed, express consent, no. Not the baby.
2013-09-18 06:07:48 PM  
1 votes:

profplump: Regardless, the possible existence of a memory is hardly an excuse to preclude someone the right of free choice -- if you found a sleeping person with a non-urgent medical issue (let's say head lice) would it be ethical to treat them without their consent, or would you wait until they woke up to ask them to consent?


You're comparing apples (i.e. a minor unable to even vocalize consent, but for whom a procedure has a clear benefit with a low risk of side effects or complications, which is explained to the parents who consent to it) to oranges (an adult patient who is unconscious)
2013-09-18 06:06:13 PM  
1 votes:

meat0918: And the same thing is happening with vaccination.


Can we just preemptively give the anti-vaxxers shots of polio and whatever else so they die and leave the rest of us alone?

\Give those same shots to the anti-circumcision nuts while you're at it.
\\And the anti-abortion crowd, and militant vegans, and...
\\\I could make a list.
2013-09-18 06:03:52 PM  
1 votes:
Possibly relevant

photos1.blogger.com
2013-09-18 06:00:13 PM  
1 votes:

Argyle82: I can't think of a better word to use than 'mutilation' when it comes to cutting off parts of a human's body for no other reason than the Jews did it thousands of years ago


But since then we've reverse-engineered some reasons why it's beneficial to some adults, so we MUST continue doing it to all children shortly after they are born. Ignore the fact that none of the claimed benefits impact pre-pubecent children -- we have to do it to them anyway.

If you had incontrovertible evidence that surgically removing your fingernails halved your lifetime risk of skin cancer I bet you'd still have a hard time getting people to do it to infants; the reason circumcision is popular has nothing to do with any medical benefits and it's as much a lie to claim it's being done to in the US to prevent the spread of HIV as it is to claim that it reduces sensitivity.
2013-09-18 06:00:09 PM  
1 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: You could just accept it and not have any of your sons circumcised if that's your thing, but instead you act like fanatical weirdos bent on telling people how they really feel and imagining you know better.


It's like those "activists" who don't want to do the work and lose weight, so they rail on about how society should change its standard of beauty to better accommodate them.
2013-09-18 05:58:07 PM  
1 votes:

Argyle82: I can't think of a better word to use than 'mutilation' when it comes to cutting off parts of a human's body for no other reason than the Jews did it thousands of years ago to keep sand out of it....


Actually it was victorian doctors that pushed it as a way to decrease masturbation. It's a farked up practice which we barbarically perform on newborns.
2013-09-18 05:55:59 PM  
1 votes:

Argyle82: I can't think of a better word to use than 'mutilation' when it comes to cutting off parts of a human's body for no other reason than the Jews did it thousands of years ago to keep sand out of it....


I think it was more about tribal unity.  The assumption being that you were less likely to ditch if your manhood looks different.

/same goes for most of what's in those early Old Testament books
2013-09-18 05:55:35 PM  
1 votes:

profplump: hardinparamedic: It should be the parents personal choice.

Is there some reason it can't be the post-pubecent male's own choice? Exactly what 7-year-olds need protection from STDs?


That argument always intrigued me. Foreskins are about as useful as abstinence or pulling out.
2013-09-18 05:53:56 PM  
1 votes:

Magnanimous_J: blatz514: How do I tell my wife that It really gets on my nerves when she nibbles on my foreskin?

She thinks that I like it, but honestly, I just wish that I'd thrown it away after the circumcision.

hahaha. gross.

As for you anti-circumcision crowd, I'll make you a deal. For every circumcision you talk people out of, I'm going to declaw 5 cats.


I've been snipped. I'm good with it. I heard the joke I posted awhile ago but I had to do some searching to get it worded correctly.
2013-09-18 05:53:48 PM  
1 votes:

ZeroCorpse: This isn't even worth talking about.

How about you do what you're gonna do, and I do what I'm gonna do, and we not talk about it as if you have any influence on the choices I make.

Ultimately, this seems to come down to the foreskin-having guys and their girlfriends trying desperately to justify the ugliness of their penis in western society. We get it: You're self-conscious about your unattractive smeggy penis. We just don't care.


Nope. If That were the case we'd just go get it snipped, as we are adults capable of making decisions. It's about forcing this procedure on babies.
2013-09-18 05:52:45 PM  
1 votes:

hardinparamedic: As long as male circumcision is done in a manner that is humane and safe, such as under sedation or general anesthesia, I really don't have a problem with it. It should be the parents personal choice.


I'm just not really down with the idea of preventative genital mutilation. If the kid later wants to become circumcised in order to reap those medical benefits, that should be his choice. It's not like there's any rush, considering babies aren't having much sexual activity. Later in life the parents can have the sex talk, lay out both sides, and let him decide. Treat it like ear piercing. There's really no point in doing it until the child is of age where they're capable of asking about it.
2013-09-18 05:52:20 PM  
1 votes:

hardinparamedic: It should be the parents personal choice.


Is there some reason it can't be the post-pubecent male's own choice? Exactly what 7-year-olds need protection from STDs?
2013-09-18 05:49:01 PM  
1 votes:

thisisyourbrainonFark: I was circumcised. I got over it.

/so will my daughter


super_grass: In b4 comparisons with female circumcision.


God dammit.
2013-09-18 05:48:05 PM  
1 votes:

thisisyourbrainonFark: I was circumcised. I got over it.

/so will my daughter


Window or aisle?
2013-09-18 05:45:48 PM  
1 votes:
In b4 comparisons with female circumcision.
2013-09-18 05:43:41 PM  
1 votes:

I want your skull: 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.

Except instead of funneling sound to your earhole, foreskin funnels diseases to your peehole?


Which is why the Europeans and non-Muslim/WorstKorean Asians went extinct.  STDs took them all out about 50 years ago.  If only they had circumcisions.
2013-09-18 05:40:49 PM  
1 votes:
Cosmetic surgery on infants. Sure why not?
2013-09-18 05:38:20 PM  
1 votes:
I know two guys who were circumcised as adults.

They both LOVED it.
2013-09-18 05:33:16 PM  
1 votes:
I predict this will turn out well.
2013-09-18 05:27:53 PM  
1 votes:

blatz514: How do I tell my wife that It really gets on my nerves when she nibbles on my foreskin?

She thinks that I like it, but honestly, I just wish that I'd thrown it away after the circumcision.


WINNAR.
2013-09-18 05:26:45 PM  
1 votes:
How do I tell my wife that It really gets on my nerves when she nibbles on my foreskin?

She thinks that I like it, but honestly, I just wish that I'd thrown it away after the circumcision.
2013-09-18 05:21:53 PM  
1 votes:
This thread would be 66 percent more pleasurable if it weren't cut short.
2013-09-18 05:19:00 PM  
1 votes:
Oh look.... he's citing studies that have already been debunked.

NEXT bullshiat artist.
2013-09-18 04:54:16 PM  
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
These threads are always fun.
 
Displayed 169 of 169 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report