Male circumcision

Page 12 of 12 [ 188 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Joined: 15 Aug 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 297
Location: banned :(

29 Oct 2011, 2:11 pm

It seems my initial analysis of the behaviour of circumcised men was bang on. Ruveyn has rational, or at least reasonable opinions on most other topics. Second you bring up his wang, that flies out the window. From threatening war, justifying child mutilation without consent, proclaiming natural human penises don't look human, citing tradition as a good reason to continue a practice. :roll: There is no arguing, the rest of the species is just going to have to step in to stop this barbarism.

_________________
Crom is a grim, gloomy and unforgiving god, ever watching from atop his mountain in dark clouds and obscuring mists, ready to pass disapproving judgment on any and all. But he is said to value courage and tenacity in mortals, even if they ultimately fail.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Oct 2011, 3:24 pm

lilypadfad wrote:

There is no arguing, the rest of the species is just going to have to step in to stop this barbarism.

No they won't. If King Atiochus could not stop circumcision, no government edict will. Aside from being unconstitutional it is impractical to try to stop what people are determined to do. Have the laws stopped, murder, theft, use of dope? Nope?

Remember just out side of the jurisdictional limit of the U.S sails the Hospital/Circumcision ship SS Mohel.

If the rest of the species want to remain as uncircumcised dogs that is there right.

ruveyn

lilypadfad
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 15 Aug 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 297
Location: banned :(

29 Oct 2011, 6:41 pm

Quote:

If the rest of the species want to remain as uncircumcised dogs that is there right.

And yet you want to deprive Jewish children of that right.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Oct 2011, 7:20 pm

lilypadfad wrote:

Quote:

If the rest of the species want to remain as uncircumcised dogs that is there right.

And yet you want to deprive Jewish children of that right.

We love our children and will do what is best for them. You handle your kids your way, and we will treat our kids our way. No Jewish kid has yet been hurt by circumcision done under proper cleanliness conditions. And the kids grow up with a small chance of cancer of the glans penis, a smaller chance of contracting STDs etc. It is all for the best.

If you want your kids to have the greater risk of cancer or STDs go right ahead and keep your children intact. No one is forcing a thing on you.

ruveyn

AspieRogue

23 Feb 2012, 7:43 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Vexcalibur wrote:

I won't deny that maybe 5000 years ago , it made a different, but in 2011, we have condoms and they are much better - Compare a 5% relative improvement to a 97% protection rate. The study ruveyn posted the other day was clear enough: There are not enough health reasons to promote widespread circumcision.

You are quite right. Neo-natal circumcision is for the Jews. Not for you Gentiles.

You Gentiles can go around with appendages that look like the ones on dogs and horses. Jews will have tools that can only be human.

ruveyn

GOY PRIDE WORLD WIDE :mrgreen:

CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

24 Feb 2012, 2:26 pm

ruveyn wrote:

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

Ok, this was inspired from another thread.

Do you think it's right? Do you think it's ok that media isn't making a fuss of it?

Some of the worlds greatest people have had their wicks trimmed. What is not to like about it?

A clean wick is a happy wick, free from the curse of smegma.

A clean wick is less likely to become a cancerous wick. Oh joy!

A clean wick stays up longer. Whooopieeeeeeee!

ruveyn

A preemptive mastectomy lowers the risk of breast cancer by 100% and can also prevent chronic back pain. It also greatly contributes to female hygiene by preventing breast sweat and skin rash.

That's how these arguments sound to me. Circumcision in the English-speaking part of the Christian world originally had the goal to make masturbation less pleasant. For the same reason, Victorian doctors cauterized the clitoris of young girls with a hot iron or with carbolic acid.

It is a crying shame that one of these barbaric practices has survived, and that some American medical professionals are desperately trying to justify infant genital mutilation in this day and age. One might as well advocate ear removal, because young boys are notorious for not washing behind their ears. Ear removal would also lower the skin cancer risk by 3% :roll:

CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

24 Feb 2012, 2:29 pm

Joker wrote:

circumcision is a good thing a uncircumcised penis looks gross :evil:

Some men feel the same way about unmutilated vaginas. What I personally find gross is people who mutilate children, as well as people who have such a strong amputee fetish that they find healthy people unseemly.

CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

24 Feb 2012, 2:54 pm

visagrunt wrote:

Well,

[wearin' my doctor hat]

The link between circumcision and penile cancer prophylaxis is well established. But given the relatively low incidence of penile cancer, circumcision does not appear to be a necessary course of action.
There is solid evidence that circumcision has a statistically significant impact in reducing the transmission of HIV from female to male during vaginal intercourse. But it is certainly not as effective as condoms.
There are demonstrable links between circumcision and reduced incidences of a variety of other urological disorders.

At the end of the day, I would solidly agree that circumcised men are going to realize a demonstrable benefit over uncircumcized men. However, that benefit is marginal, many of the conditions are eminently treatable, and more effective prophylactics exists for many of them. In the end, the marginal benefit is not likely sufficient to justify circumcision as a routine neonatal practice.

[wearin' my "mine's cut" hat]

I have experience absolutely no sexual dysfunction connected with my circumcision. It works as promised.

At least three studies have found that men circumcised as adults demonstrated a longer interval before ejaculation, which may not necessarily be a bad thing.

Other impacts demonstrated included reduced sensitivity, but with no reduction in sexual activity and greater reported satisfaction. This may not be a particularly reliable finding, however, because a significant number of adult circumcisions are performed on men who present a sexual dysfunction for which the circumcision is indicated. The etiology for increased satisfaction may well be the resolution of the preexisting condition just as much as the circumcision in se.

[wearing my gay man hat]

I have no strong feelings. I have had partners of both cut and uncut persuasions, and neither presented any advantage over the other.

That's a great summary, but I would like to add that the alleged lower risk of HIV is based on studies that were conducted in African countries. Not everyone in those countries can afford a circumcision, and there is a strong correlation between greater wealth, better hygiene and lower infection risk. In other words, these studies are worthless.

As for urological infections and cancer, the main risk factor is a lack of hygiene. Men who wash their genitals on a regular basis have a lower risk of penile and urethral carcinoma and infections, no matter if they are circumcised or not. Alas, proper hygiene is hard for men with a phimosis, which explains the statistical difference between both groups. But that is only an argument against untreated phimosis (which can be treated by stretching the foreskin, surgery is not necessary), not an argument for infant genital mutilation.

The risk of surgical malpractice and post-surgical complications should also not go unmentioned. The incidence of penile cancer is nothing compared to the number of botched circumcisions and post-surgery infections that lead to complete or partial penectomies. No male in his right mind would take the risk of a life with a disfigured or partially removed penis over a small risk of penile cancer at age 60 or 70.

CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

24 Feb 2012, 3:05 pm

ruveyn wrote:

lilypadfad wrote:

Relevant perhaps? People here have already stated that freedom of religion does not allow you to harm others or infringe on another's rights. While harm is up for debate, performing an irreversible procedure like that on a boy who cannot consent is most definitely an infringement of his rights.

Since when is an action (taken when it is easiest and safest to do) infringing on rights? Jews have been sparing their male children the danger of cancer of the glans penis and the curse of smegma for three thousand years. Some infringement of rights that is.

ruveyn

If circumcision advocates would knock out their children's teeth, they'd also spare them the curse of plaque and cavities :roll:

As for penile cancer, the most common types are carcinoma of the glans and foreskin. Only the latter are prevented by removing the foreskin. I mean, duh. Amputate something and you can't get cancer in the removed body part. So we should probably amputate all kinds of body parts preemptively. Remove one testicle, and you lower the risk of testicular cancer by 50%, right? What a great argument for needless bodily mutilation.

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,695
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

24 Feb 2012, 3:10 pm

I can't really make a call on this. I've lived my whole life without a turtleneck so I suppose I don't know what I'm missing, much like I have no idea whether I'm really traumatized in any sense from the experience since it happened prior to my earliest memories.

_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.

Chronos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,698

25 Feb 2012, 1:43 am

lilypadfad wrote:

Quote:

Yea, it's the equivelant of that.

Personally I think that any woman who supports male circumicision yet againt female circumicision is being hypocrite.

And the circ'ed man who supports it is being delusional.

Hehe women are notoriously unsympathetic. LKL, have you ever seen a video of a baby boy being circumcised? It's pretty brutal. There are some theories that say such a traumatic event early in life might have lasting psychological effects. Honestly, when it comes to the pain inflicted and the loss of sexual sensation, I think it's on par with female circumcision.

There are different types of female circumcision. The only type that is remotely comparable to male circumcision is type I, where only the clitoral hood is removed.

In the least invasive type, just the hood of the clitoris is removed. The hood is analogous to the foreskin on the penis and the clitoris is analogous to the penis. However because the clitoris is much smaller, the nerve endings are packed much denser so the hood plays a much greater role in protection from chafing in women.

The most extreme type of female circumcision is called infibulation.This is the removal of the clitoris, labia, and surrounding flesh. The vagina is then sewn up leaving a small hole through which urine and blood must pass. Occasionally the hole is large enough to allow for sexual intercourse, however sometimes it's not and the woman must endure painful intercourse or the hole has to be opened a bit by cutting. The woman has to have the hole cut open to give birth and then she is sewn up again.

This is somewhat analogous to cutting off the penis and surrounding flesh, but is much more involved for the above reason.

Infibulation is not uncommon in countries that practice female circumcision.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

26 Feb 2012, 7:03 pm

CrazyCatLord wrote:

A preemptive mastectomy lowers the risk of breast cancer by 100% and can also prevent chronic back pain. It also greatly contributes to female hygiene by preventing breast sweat and skin rash.

My grandmother is fighting breast cancer right now. Believe me, I've contemplated whacking mine off and getting falsies more than once.

Page 12 of 12 [ 188 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Jump to:

Male circumcision Post Reply New Topic

Male circumcision