Circumcision ?

[♪alt13]

Without a circumcision, your kid will be known in gym class as the Anteater going forward. Might as well get him clipped. He wouldn't have thst embarrassing nickname and he learns a valuable lesson regarding giving when he gives the excess foreskin to some gay guys for chewing gum. Win-Win-Win!

HE won't have to wait for gym class I'll be calling him that from birth. It's good for kids to get teased(a reasonable amount)helps them emotional prepare for the hurdles they will have to overcome later in life. If he had a crooked nose I certainly would not send him to a plastic surgeon to spare his feelings.

 

[franklin]

Watching the doctor stick that needle into my son's dicks was almost as painful as watching the birthings. It gave them both good character.

 

[Zulu]

Watching the doctor stick that needle into my son's dicks was almost as painful as watching the birthings. It gave them both good character.

This!!

 

[Zulu]

Years ago I knew a guy who wasn't nipped as a baby. Ad an adult he had to have it done for whatever reason. He said he wished it would have been done as a baby. Apparently it was fairly painful. He also said the pain would wake him up every time he got an erection during his sleep (it's normal to have several a night).

I have a buddy of mine,South African part of the Xolisa tribe, and their becoming a man initiation is going to the "bush" for three weeks were on the second day they are circumcised...

He told me the story in full detail.... Never been more disturbed in my life!!!

 

[UGLI baby]

I have a buddy of mine,South African part of the Xolisa tribe, and their becoming a man initiation is going to the "bush" for three weeks were on the second day they are circumcised...

He told me the story in full detail.... Never been more disturbed in my life!!!

Lol @ stealing the storyline from "The Air Up There" starring Kevin Bacon and passing it off as a story about a friend.


£¥£

 

[♪alt13]

Watching the doctor stick that needle into my son's dicks was almost as painful as watching the birthings. It gave them both good character.

I bet you would be giving the same bs arguments if it was our cultural tradition to cut off their thumbs. I haven't heard of any medical reason(other than a less than 1% increased risk in urinary tract infection) so please give me a legitimate reason or admit you were misguided and put your child through intense pain and risk of serious complication for no good reason.

 

[The Blue Elephant]

Research shows that circumcised men have no decrease in sexual pleasure, have less chance of getting cancer, reduce the chances of their female partners getting uterine cancer, reduces diseases, and reduces infection.

Siegfried N, Muller M, Deeks JJ, Volmink J (2009).
"Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men". In Siegfried, Nandi. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Online) (2): CD003362. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003362.pub2. PMID 19370585 Krieger JN (May 2011).
"Male circumcision and HIV infection risk". World Journal of Urology 30 (1): 3–13. doi:10.1007/s00345-011-0696-x. PMID 21590467 Tobian AA, Gray RH (October 2011).
"The medical benefits of male circumcision". JAMA 306 (13): 1479–80. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1431. PMC 3684945. PMID 21972310 Uthman OA, Popoola TA, Uthman MM, Aremu O (2010).
"Economic evaluations of adult male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review". In Van Baal, Pieter H. M. PLoS ONE 5 (3): e9628. "Male cir
cumcision: Global trends and determinants of prevalence, safety and acceptability" (PDF). World Health Organization. 2007. "WHO and UNAIDS announce recommendations from expert consultation on male circumcision for HIV prevention". World Health Organization. March 2007Kim H, Li PS, Goldstein M, Howard H; Li, Philip S; Goldstein, Marc (2010 Nov). "Male circumcision: Africa and beyond?". Current opinion in urology 20 (6): 515–9. doi:10.1097/MOU.0b013e32833f1b21. PMID 20844437. ^ Weiss HA, Dickson KE, Agot K, Hankins CA (2010).
"Male circumcision for HIV prevention: current research and programmatic issues". AIDS. 24 Suppl 4: S61–9. doi:10.1097/01.aids.0000390708.66136.f4. PMID 21042054. ^ a b "New Data on Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention: Policy and Programme Implications" (PDF). World Health Organization. March 28, 2007.
^ Sansom SL, Prabhu VS, Hutchinson AB, et al. (2010). "Cost-effectiveness of newborn circumcision in reducing lifetime HIV risk among U.S. males". In Kissinger, Patricia. PLoS ONE 5 (1): e8723. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0008723. PMC 2807456. PMID 20090910. ^ "Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission and Other Health Conditions: Implications for the United States". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 7 February 2008. Retrieved 15 July 2011.
^ a b c Templeton DJ, Millett GA, Grulich AE (February 2010). "Male circumcision to reduce the risk of HIV and sexually transmitted infections among men who have sex with men". Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis. 23 (1): 45–52. doi:10.1097/QCO.0b013e328334e54d. PMID 19935420. ^ Wiysonge CS, Kongnyuy EJ, Shey M, et al. (2011).
"Male circumcision for prevention of homosexual acquisition of HIV in men". In Wiysonge, Charles Shey. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (6): CD007496. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007496.pub2. PMID 21678366. ^ "STD facts – Human papillomavirus (HPV)". CDC. ^ a b c d e Rehmeyer C, CJ (2011).
"Male Circumcision and Human Papillomavirus Studies Reviewed by Infection Stage and Virus Type". J Am Osteopathy Assoc 111 (3 suppl 2): S11–S18. PMID 21415373.

Circumcision not only should be legal, it should be necessary because circumcision provides too many positive effects and no negative effects.

The evidence was so great that recently for the first time in 2012 the AAP (american academy of pediatrics) have changed their position from no opinion to "newborns are better off circumcised." (https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/Newborn-Male-Circumcision.aspx)

The only sound argument I have come accross against circumcusion is that children should be given to option when they become adults. AAP also addressed this and found that through investigation of research that in order to get the full benefits of circumcision, circumcision is recommended for newborns.

 

[♪alt13]

Circumcision not only should be legal, it should be necessary because circumcision provides too many positive effects and no negative effects.

The evidence was so great that recently for the first time in 2012 the AAP (american academy of pediatrics) have changed their position from no opinion to "newborns are better off circumcised." (https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/Newborn-Male-Circumcision.aspx)

The only sound argument I have come accross against circumcusion is that children should be given to option when they become adults. AAP also addressed this and found that through investigation of research that in order to get the full benefits of circumcision, circumcision is recommended for newborns.

I see that most of these studies seem to center around std's so i still don't see why the decision should not be left up to the child when he is old enough to make the decision. I will have to do some more research and read about the studies you have posted. Thank you I really do appreciate the info.

 

[♪alt13]

recent studies done in Kenya, South Africa, and Uganda by Ronald H. Gray, a professor at Johns Hopkins University. He recently reported that men who were circumcised were less likely by half to contract HIV virus and less likely by one-third to become infected with HPV and herpes. [2]

While this sounds promising, I agree with my colleague George Denniston, M.D., who said, "The United States has high rates of HIV and the highest rate of circumcision in the West. The "experiment" of using circumcision to stem HIV infection has been running here for decades. It has failed miserably. Why do countries such as New Zealand, where they abandoned infant circumcision 50 years ago, or European countries, where circumcision is rare, have such low rates of HIV?

Thoughts?

 

[franklin]

I bet you would be giving the same bs arguments if it was our cultural tradition to cut off their thumbs. I haven't heard of any medical reason(other than a less than 1% increased risk in urinary tract infection) so please give me a legitimate reason or admit you were misguided and put your child through intense pain and risk of serious complication for no good reason.

Bro, misguided is a term so underestimating that words cannot define. Believe me when I tell you that I fantasized daily about my children killing me for the torture I have put them through during circumcision. I cannot live with myself for these dirty deeds and hope revenge upon myself every single day. The agony I live with is utterly unbearable.

 

[MVP]

Research shows that circumcised men have no decrease in sexual pleasure, have less chance of getting cancer, reduce the chances of their female partners getting uterine cancer, reduces diseases, and reduces infection.

wow, slow down their blue fella. Have less chance of getting cancer? If you talking about foreskin cancer than yes - for sure. How about you mention that it is extremely rare form of cancer and removing foreskin to avoid it certainly makes no sense? What diseases circumcision reduces? As far as urinary tract infections goes it was such a small difference that it is insignificant - from 1% chance reducing to 0.3% certainly does not justify it - thus rates of UTI's in Europe is no higher then USA. No decrease in sexual pleasure? Even Jews thousands years ago clearly knew and stated that one of the purpose of circumcision is to reduce sexual pleasure - the Jewish philosopher Philo (20 BC - AD 50) gives six reasons for the practice of circumcision including the idea that circumcision "signified figuratively the excision of all superfluous and excessive pleasure" - it is very simple you cut skin with thousands of nerve endings - you lose sensation.
Lots was pushed from circumcision proponents about HIV and that circumcision "decreases risk of transmission of disease". Yet they fail to explain how USA being the most circumcised from developed nations has one of the highest rates of HIV, while Japan and Finland which are almost 99% uncircumcised have lowest rates of HIV.
As far as AAP statement goes - it is estimated that 1.2 million newborn males are circumcised in the United States annually at a cost of between $150 and $270 million. Decreasing rates of circumcision means less profit for medical professionals. No wonder they trying to push for it and even then they where not openly recommended it - "After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs. - See more at: https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the...on=ERROR:+No+local+token#sthash.qatzaggs.dpuf

 

[The Blue Elephant]

wow, slow down their blue fella. Have less chance of getting cancer? If you talking about foreskin cancer than yes - for sure. How about you mention that it is extremely rare form of cancer and removing foreskin to avoid it certainly makes no sense? What diseases circumcision reduces? As far as urinary tract infections goes it was such a small difference that it is insignificant - from 1% chance reducing to 0.3% certainly does not justify it - thus rates of UTI's in Europe is no higher then USA. No decrease in sexual pleasure? Even Jews thousands years ago clearly knew and stated that one of the purpose of circumcision is to reduce sexual pleasure - the Jewish philosopher Philo (20 BC - AD 50) gives six reasons for the practice of circumcision including the idea that circumcision "signified figuratively the excision of all superfluous and excessive pleasure" - it is very simple you cut skin with thousands of nerve endings - you lose sensation.
Lots was pushed from circumcision proponents about HIV and that circumcision "decreases risk of transmission of disease". Yet they fail to explain how USA being the most circumcised from developed nations has one of the highest rates of HIV, while Japan and Finland which are almost 99% uncircumcised have lowest rates of HIV.
As far as AAP statement goes - it is estimated that 1.2 million newborn males are circumcised in the United States annually at a cost of between $150 and $270 million. Decreasing rates of circumcision means less profit for medical professionals. No wonder they trying to push for it and even then they where not openly recommended it - "After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs. - See more at: https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the...on=ERROR:+No+local+token#sthash.qatzaggs.dpuf

"Health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks" seems like a more p/c way of saying recommend without having to implicitly stating it.

I am sorry I don't view Jewish Philosophers who are speculating (not even conducting research) from thousands of years ago to be considered scientific research.

Circucumsion reduces not just foreskin cancer but it also reduces prostate cancer https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3734995/

It also reduces cervical cancer for their females mates. https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=124426 (sorry it isn't a published source but a website, view my previous comment for published literature)

You are clearly going into causation/correlation data and not scientific studies with the Japan/Finland thing.

"Circumcision does not appear to decrease the sensitivity of the penis, harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction."

The American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision "Technical Report" (2012) addresses sexual function, sensitivity and satisfaction without qualification by age of circumcision. Sadeghi-Nejad et al. "Sexually transmitted diseases and sexual function" (2010) addresses adult circumcision and sexual function. Doyle et al. "The Impact of Male Circumcision on HIV Transmission" (2010) addresses adult circumcision and sexual function. Perera et al. "Safety and efficacy of nontherapeutic male circumcision: a systematic review" (2010) addresses adult circumcision and sexual function and satisfaction.

 

[MVP]

And how about nobody is talking about side effects of circumcisions? They are not common, but tell it that risk is low to those parents who's son lost penis or got permanently disfigured. I could post link with nasty pictures of botched circumcisions with disfigured penises but it could lead to infraction, so heyhey if that will help you make your mind I can PM link to you.
Another thing to consider. There is huge market for harvested foreskins to make cosmetic products - again declining rates of circumcision means danger to that business and lots of rich and unethical businessmen are not happy about it.

https://www.thewellspring.com/flex/...nor-painful/2617/circumcision-who-profits.cfm

 

[♪alt13]

Well I did find a list of circumcision complications from Stanford.
https://newborns.stanford.edu/CircComplications.html

 

[MVP]

"Health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks" seems like a more p/c way of saying recommend without having to implicitly stating it.

I am sorry I don't view Jewish Philosophers who are speculating (not even conducting research) from thousands of years ago to be considered scientific research.

Circucumsion reduces not just foreskin cancer but it also reduces prostate cancer https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3734995/

It also reduces cervical cancer for their females mates. https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=124426 (sorry it isn't a published source but a website, view my previous comment for published literature)

You are clearly going into causation/correlation data and not scientific studies with the Japan/Finland thing.

"Circumcision does not appear to decrease the sensitivity of the penis, harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction."

The American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision "Technical Report" (2012) addresses sexual function, sensitivity and satisfaction without qualification by age of circumcision. Sadeghi-Nejad et al. "Sexually transmitted diseases and sexual function" (2010) addresses adult circumcision and sexual function. Doyle et al. "The Impact of Male Circumcision on HIV Transmission" (2010) addresses adult circumcision and sexual function. Perera et al. "Safety and efficacy of nontherapeutic male circumcision: a systematic review" (2010) addresses adult circumcision and sexual function and satisfaction.

Wait so you are arguing that removing sensitive skin does not reduce sensitivity? lol are you serious? If you would read some of those studies about sensitivity you would find out that all they did they checked sensitivity of the glans of circumcised and exposed glans of uncircumcised men and found no difference . Problem is they could not check circumcised men general sensation in regards to foreskin as it was gone.
And sure you would blame low rates of HIV in non circumcised countries on causation and correlation thing - lol. You can't deny that the BIGGEST drive for American doctors pushing for circumcision is almighty dollar and not medical benefits which are to little to justify removal of perfectly healthy and normal organ. Where money stopped being a factor circumcision rates dropped to almost zero - In England, under socialized medicine when physicians were no longer compensated monetarily, the circumcision rate fell to below 0.5%. You want to say UK doctors are stupid and do not read "well researched studies and recommendations of well respected USA colleagues?? Or they suddenly stopped caring about " prevention from prostate cancer, HIV and UTIs?" Man what a terrible doctors practice in UK, rest of Europe, Russia, Japan, all South America, Canada and basically all non Muslim and non Jewish world.....

 

[♪alt13]

And how about nobody is talking about side effects of circumcisions? They are not common, but tell it that risk is low to those parents who's son lost penis or got permanently disfigured. I could post link with nasty pictures of botched circumcisions with disfigured penises but it could lead to infraction, so heyhey if that will help you make your mind I can PM link to you.
Another thing to consider. There is huge market for harvested foreskins to make cosmetic products - again declining rates of circumcision means danger to that business and lots of rich and unethical businessmen are not happy about it.

https://www.thewellspring.com/flex/...nor-painful/2617/circumcision-who-profits.cfm

That's all right it seems that all of the medical reasoning is akin to removing an infants fingernails in order to avoid the germs that might get trapped in there and the occasional hang nail. The more I look into these studies the more their methodology seems to be in question. I will continue reading of course but to be honest I think this is a serious decision to make for someone else so it will take a pretty damn good reason for me to go ahead and do it.

 

[The Blue Elephant]

Well I did find a list of circumcision complications from Stanford.
https://newborns.stanford.edu/CircComplications.html

Its from biotched circumcisions. The chance that infection occuring is offeset by the lowered chance of UTI's. Circumcision reduced the chances of UTI's by 83% in one study.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19231547

Vast overwhelming majority of complications occur when done by nonprofessionals.

"complications occur in less than 1% of procedures.... usually minor"
"Complication rates are greater when the procedure is performed by an inexperienced operator, in unsterile conditions, or when the child is at an older age"
-Weiss HA, Larke N, Halperin D, Schenker I (2010). "Complications of circumcision in male neonates, infants and children: a systematic review". BMC Urol 10

If you want to do your son a favor, have him circumcised, preferably at an earlier age.

 

[The Blue Elephant]

That's all right it seems that all of the medical reasoning is akin to removing an infants fingernails in order to avoid the germs that might get trapped in there and the occasional hang nail. The more I look into these studies the more their methodology seems to be in question. I will continue reading of course but to be honest I think this is a serious decision to make for someone else so it will take a pretty damn good reason for me to go ahead and do it.

Reducing chances of multiple forms of cancer by a significant amount(not just for the individual circumscribed but both partners), reducing the chances of a variety of diseases, reducing the chances of infection, and no negative side effects is the same as removing your nails.

 

[MVP]

Here was Europeans had to say about AAP statement:

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently released its new Technical Report and Policy Statement on male circumcision, concluding that current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks. The technical report is based on the scrutiny of a large number of complex scientific articles. Therefore, while striving for objectivity, the conclusions drawn by the 8 task force members reflect what these individual physicians perceived as trustworthy evidence. Seen from the outside, cultural bias reflecting the normality of nontherapeutic male circumcision in the United States seems obvious, and the report’s conclusions are different from those reached by physicians in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada, and Australia. In this commentary, a different view is presented by non–US-based physicians and representatives of general medical associations and societies for pediatrics, pediatric surgery, and pediatric urology in Northern Europe. To these authors, only 1 of the arguments put forward by the American Academy of Pediatrics has some theoretical relevance in relation to infant male circumcision; namely, the possible protection against urinary tract infections in infant boys, which can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss. The other claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts, and penile cancer, are questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves.

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.abstract

 

[♪alt13]

Its from biotched circumcisions. The chance that infection occuring is offeset by the lowered chance of UTI's. Circumcision reduced the chances of UTI's by 83% in one study.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19231547

Vast overwhelming majority of complications occur when done by nonprofessionals.

"complications occur in less than 1% of procedures.... usually minor"
"Complication rates are greater when the procedure is performed by an inexperienced operator, in unsterile conditions, or when the child is at an older age"
-Weiss HA, Larke N, Halperin D, Schenker I (2010). "Complications of circumcision in male neonates, infants and children: a systematic review". BMC Urol 10

If you want to do your son a favor, have him circumcised, preferably at an earlier age.

yeah but that 83% is as akmvp said 0.3% compared to 1% and I did read concerns from an oxford research fellow(will find link) that the methodology of that particular study was flawed. Furthermore UTI's are easily treated with anti-biotics so it does not necessarily justify preemptive surgery.

This isn't the same one I was refering to earlier but it's the same jist.

URNARY TRACT INFECTIONS
According to the literature reviewed,∼1% of boys will develop a UTI within the first years of life.
2 There are no randomized controlled trials (RCTs)linking UTIs to circumcision status.The evidence for clinically significant protection is weak, and with easy access to health care, deaths or long-term negative medical consequences of UTIs are rare. UTI incidence does not seem to be lower in the United States, with high circumcision rates compared with Europe with low circumcision rates, and the AAP report suggests it will take∼100 circumcisions to prevent 1 case of UTI. Using reasonable European estimates cited in the AAP report for the frequency of surgical and postoperative complications (∼2%), for every 100 circumcisions, 1 case of UTI may be prevented at the cost of 2 cases of hemorrhage, infection, or, in rare instances, more severe outcomes or even death.
Circumcision fails to meet the criteria to serve as a preventive measure for UTI, even though this is the only 1 of the AAP report’s 4 most favored arguments that has any relevance before the boy gets old enough to decide for himself

https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2013-03-18_Frisch%20et%20al.pdf