Circumcision ?

[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.