Posted On:12/13/2005 5:10pm
Style: lol yet again more Judo !
your a weird weird fellow ...
Originally Posted by SFGOON
Yes but you completely ignore the fact that the French **** up the medical literature with phrases like "interferes with the pattern of masturbation which may be seriously traumatic."
I see nothing wrong people having opinions, Like the author of this text .Especialy when it comes to personal choice and freedom in medical care and concerning your own body .
Originally Posted by SFGOON
I've lived in Kentucky and can DEFINEITELY see why you hate christians so much - but you should meet French people, they're just as bad in the opposite way.
Its not even the X-tians I hate as much as the individual people .
Saying things like The French do this . or the Blacks do that , The Whites are greedy , or Christians suck ( I am guilty of that one ... :( ...), or The Americans are baby killers is just damn ignorant and yes being in Kentucky you to should be familiar with ignorance . Not everyone is what their brother , sister , neighboor , or peer appears to be .
* edit *
that a little better ?
Last edited by BackFistMonkey; 12/13/2005 5:45pm at .
Originally Posted by ghost55
Violence is pretty uncommon in clubs in this area, and the dude didn't seem particularly hostile up until the moment he slapped me.
“I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.”
Posted On:12/13/2005 5:24pm
Style: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu
I'm genuinly confused by this exchange.
Posted On:12/13/2005 5:33pm
Originally Posted by Krampus
I'm genuinly confused by this exchange.
hmmmm ... which part .. I can tell both he and I are assuming the other one can follow certain trains of thought with out having to lay out the foundation ....
but then again we may both just be retarded talking about completely different issues .
Posted On:12/13/2005 5:34pm
Style: Getting mounted
Yeah, seriously...what the **** is going on?
Posted On:12/13/2005 11:50pm
Style: BJJ and then some
Originally Posted by The Hanukkah Hammer
and at least in America, it's been my perspective that women prefer a "cut" man.
This is because it's all most of us have known. i used to be that way myself. The first time I saw an uncircumsized penis he wouldn't let me see it until he was erect, and by then I couldn't tell the difference. Later I came across some more and I was disgusted. I was dating one guy and I just hated it. I thought it looked like an upsidedown klansman.
At the end of one semester our Professor took all of us students out to a bar for pizza and beer. The conversation turned to penises, and my professor said that she had left her son's penis alone. I told her that many of us American women find it gross and disgusting, and that his partners would probably be turned off. (I met this guy a couple of weeks ago and I must say, no woman in her right mind would kick this guy out of bed on account of his foreskin--he's HOT HOT HOT.)
Then I went to Europe and told my Dutch and German friends all about circumsized penises. They were disgusted at the idea. I slept with a Danish man and I never thought twice about his uncut state. But then again, I was drunk.
Over a year ago I started dating my current boyfriend, who still has his foreskin intact. it took me a moment to get used to, but I must say, at this point, I LOVE IT. And not just because I love him. Whenever I fantasize about someone else, he's always uncut.
So, yes, American women often do prefer circumsized men. But for those of us who have grown up and accepted the male body as it is, a turtleneck is more than just fine, it's desireable.
Posted On:12/13/2005 11:54pm
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to beka again.
Bullshido Wikipedia Delegate
Posted On:12/14/2005 1:09am
Style: Krav / (Kick)Boxing / BJJ
I've always been against circumcision. The only real health benefit it provides that can't also be provided by proper hygiene is a reduction in the incidence of penile cancer (which would really, really, really suck.) However, penile cancer is so rare anyway the benefit is minimal. Anyway, I think that the medical arguments from both sides basically cancel each other out.
The reason I am against circumcision is that I don't think parents have the right to do something like that to a child without a valid medical reason. If for some reason penile cancer ran in the family and the child had a good chance of getting it later, of course the parents should consider circumcision. But otherwise... it is like if some tradition required that the little toes be amputated at birth, would that be legal or ethical? I don't think there would be any disadvantage to having your little toes amputated at birth, but shouldn't that be something for the child to decide when he gets old enough? How about if the tradition insisted that the child be tattooed at birth? Or have an earlobe cut off? I just think these should all be something people are allowed to decide for themselves.
It would be cool to have a discussion about this, but only if we can all control ourselves and not just insult each other (this goes for me too.) I feel rather strongly about this, but even when I am polite people tend to get really upset about this subject which is something I would like to avoid!ethign I would like to avoid!
Alright, let's see here:
The only real health benefit it provides that can't also be provided by proper hygiene is a reduction in the incidence of penile cancer
Peer-Reviewed Journal article asserting that circumcision has been linked with reduced infection from HIV, similar to what reductions would be from a highly effective AIDS vaccine:
it is like if some tradition required that the little toes be amputated at birth,
There is a tremendous difference between amputating a body part for lifelong impairment and disfigurement, and removing a non-vital part of the body. Removing someone's toes would cripple them to a minor extent and negatively impact their life; there would be no medical benefit, and the outcome would be inconsistent with quality of life standards in civilized nations.
Removing the foreskin causes problems ONLY if it is done inappropriately or if an error is committed, and as I've already addressed, the statistical likelihood of that occurring is one of the lowest in surgical procedures. Especially when they are performed by a mohel - a surgically trained rabbi. Not to mention that at least in the Jewish faith, the circumcision (bris) is a time of celebration and joy. The male child receives his Hebrew name, and he is welcomed into the Jewish faith as a full-fledged Jew. There is much eating and drinking and rejoicing. That kind of environment is counter to the one that many anti-circumcision advocates like to portray, with a sterile, joyless hospital room and using a device to perform the circumcision rather than a surgeon.
How about if the tradition insisted that the child be tattooed at birth? Or have an earlobe cut off?
Hispanic cultures frequently pierce the ears of baby girls (my gf had this done to her). Tattoos, again, would be a disfigurement in terms of marking the baby, and earlobe removal, further disfigurement. But unlike circumcision, these don't have any definite medical benefits, so in terms of secular acceptance, these would fall short. In the case of tattooing, I'm not sure that could be ethically done to a baby because the amount of painkiller for a baby not to feel pain from that process would be detrimental to its health. Doctors likely wouldn't be willing to subject an infant to that much painkiller without a compelling medical need. Absent the painkiller, tattooing is an incredibly painful experience for most grown people; it'd be incredibly unethical and wrong to subject an infant to that sort of pain.
It would be wrong and unethical to subject an infant to the kind of pain that would come from an complications in circumcision, be it through lack of attention, an inappropriate incision, a lack of or overuse of painkiller, etc. But a properly performed circumcision results in this outcome only 1/5th of 1% of the time. If you had 100,000 births, that would mean only 200 infants. Out of a million births, 2000 infants. And as the link I provided states, most of these complications are "excessive bleeding," which is easily managed by the attending physicians. The type of complications that would be an equivalent to mutilation are even rarer.
Meanwhile, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, or children with lifelong birth defects from their mothers drinking booze while pregnant, has a prevalence of 1% in ALL births (10 per 1000 births). The specific condition Fetal Alcohol Syndrome occurs in .5-2 per 1000 births. This is a far more common, far more pervasive, far more dangerous condition than the super-ultra-rare botched circumcision that actually results in diminished sexual pleasure.
I don't think parents have the right to do something like that to a child without a valid medical reason
There are established medical benefits for circumcision. It's true that some of these benefits are possible through behavioral methods, such as hygiene instruction and not fucking women with HPV. It's also true that some diseases that vaccines are meant to prevent can also be avoided through behavioral methods. However, it is the right of the parent to evaluate the best medical options for their infant (who obviously cannot make that decision for themselves) with the expert advice of a doctor.
CIRP claims they've found 91 cases of men who were circumcised that got penile cancer (http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/vanhowe1/ ). The earliest study they cite is 1973. The latest study they cite is 1993. The last revision on that page is 2003. Out of 30 potential years of study, they found 91 cases of circumcised men who got penis cancer. That's 3 men per year. About 1000 men in Western countries get penis cancer every year. 3/1000 = .003. 3 THOUSANDTHS OF A PERCENT. A tenth of a tenth of a tenth of a percent, times 3. The most passionate advocates for anti-circumcision laws find that .003% of all penile cancer cases in 30 potential years were circumcised, and from that conclusion, they say that circumcision isn't effective? They just proved it IS effective! 99.997% of all reported cancer cases in the studies they cite were from circumcised men!
But wait, 3/1000 would be for a single year. It would have to be 91 circumcised men out of a total of *30,000* men who would get penis cancer. So 91/30000, which comes out to the same figure: .003%
On a personal note, I think it's ridiculous of CIRP to call itself an information and resource page when it's full of anti-circumcision material and propaganda. Saying that my penis isn't "intact" because it's missing a foreskin is laughable.
Actually, I'm gonna try that out. I'm gonna tell my girlfriend that I have an unintact penis and see how she reacts.
Last edited by Judah Maccabee; 12/14/2005 1:12am at .
Posted On:12/14/2005 2:52am
.. Steve when is the bris done ?
Just for the record I am cut .. I like it that way ( even though I dont know different ) but even if what I have is easier to take care of and healthier by a very slight percent it is not a nessacity and I think I may have wanted a choice about it .
Honestly I am not a real expert in foreskins ... I just believe some of the psychological concerns are worth mentioning when your talking about the procedure being done later on in life .
I just dont care enough about dick I guess ....
Posted On:12/14/2005 3:06am
Style: In Transition
You're Jewish. We get it. You got clipped and now you want to justify it. That's fine. I got hit on the side of the face with a soccer ball so hard when I was a kid, I ended up doing a cartwheel in the air (dad claims it was an accident... but I think he's plotting against me). But you don't see me going around saying "hey, kids who get hit in the face with soccer balls have less of a chance of getting face cancer! And they don't have to wash their face!"
Circumsision decreases sensitivity and sleeping with someone without using a condom is stupid.
"I don't wanna wash behind my foreskin, I'll just cut it off"? What's next? I don't wanna wash my hands, so I'll just cut them off?
Nice math-fu you got there. "Random study cites 91/30 = 3/1000"
Let's see some numbers of circumcised vs non-circumsised men getting penile cancer. You don't know where the numbers come from and I don't know where your 1000 comes from.
Maybe you're right, maybe not, but your claim based on one website is faulty.
Posted On:12/14/2005 8:08am
That's like saying because I'm half-Russian, I'm pre-disposed to liking borscht, vodka, and tea from a samovar. And as I've already explained, there are different contexts between receiving a physical injury and receiving a circumcision. They're more fully explained at the link I provided at AISH.com.
According to several resources I came across, an average of 1000 men get penile cancer every year. Some sites had lower, some had higher. Emedicine.com had the figure for 1000 people in Western countries.
Frequency: Penile cancer is rare in Western countries; approximately 1000 men each year are diagnosed with this disease. This cancer accounts for 0.4-0.6% of all malignancies in the United States and Europe. In the rest of the world, the situation is different and represents an important health problem. Penile carcinoma represents 20-30% of all cancers diagnosed in men living in Asia, Africa, or South America.
The disease rarely occurs in circumcised men, particularly if they were circumcised as a neonate.
My math-fu is sound. Using the figure I quoted, 1000 men get penile cancer every year. CIRP.org made the strawman argument that pro-circumcision physicians claimed complete immunity from penile cancer. Their evidence was citing numerous penis cancer studies, starting in 1973, up to 1993. That page was last revised 2003. That means there were 30 potential years for them to show the number of circumcised men who had penile cancer. The most they came up with was 91. 91 people over 30 years = 3 people per year. 1000 people per year get penile cancer.
3/1000 = .003
Regarding sensitivity, in my opinion, that's a BS argument in a near-totality of the cases. The only moment that most people would have for comparison between circumcision and non-circumcision is in the few days between birth and the operation. The only group of men who undergo circumcision on a regular basis with any regularity are converts to Judaism or people with foreskin problems. In those men, it would be a valid concern, but there is no study or evidence I've seen that says that adult circumcision has a pervasive, definite impact on sexual pleasure to the point of making a man unable to have a fulfilling sexual life. Most circumcised people are that way from birth, and the pervasive attitude regarding sexual stimulation in America is that when we were kids, we couldn't help playing with ourselves and did it multiple times a day. And even when we grew up, we couldn't help diddling ourselves much more. There's no massive movement of "unintact people" who blame sexual problems on their circumcision.
It's true that there is a small, but statistically significant difference in objective measures of penile sensitivity in men, based on some studies. However, sex is such an involved process of body and mind that even the most sensitive man can be unable to orgasm due to psychological issues. Or that even when a man is being raped, he can get erect or even have an orgasm during one of the most violent and humiliating acts being perpetrated against him.
Also, some other studies suggest that this difference in sensitivity is minimal or nonexistent, and that sometimes, circumcised men have an increased satisfaction in sex after getting their foreskin removed.
But, sexual enjoyment is more than penile sensitivity. Almost all circumcised men wouldn't know how sex would be with a foreskin or not. Even CIRP's website cites a study that "circumcision does not appear to have significant adverse effect on sexual function." Source: http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/masood1/
That article states that men should be made aware of potential risks. An issue of consent, not of subjective satisfaction. See, even in this particular study, men between 18-60, who would know the difference, reported being ok for the most part. Remember I said some studies claim minimal difference in sensitivity? From the same article above:
To evaluate the effects of circumcision, Bleustein et al.  tested 36 circumcised and 43 uncircumcised men for level of vibration (Biothesiometer), pressure (Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments), spatial perception (Tactile Circumferential Discriminator), and warm and cold thermal thresholds (Physitemp NTE-2) in the large and small axon nerve fibres in the dorsal midline glans penis. They demonstrated that there were no significant differences in penile sensation between circumcised and uncircumcised men with respect to vibration, spatial perception, pressure, warm and cold thermal thresholds in patients with and without erectile dysfunction. A recently published study by Enkul et al.  has again shown that adult circumcision does not adversely affect sexual function. In our study the difference between the mean total IIEF-5 score before and after circumcision was not significant. Only 18% of our patients complained about decreased sensation after circumcision as compared to 38% who experienced improved sensation (p = 0.01), with 44% who had no change.
Those two studies, if you want to see:
Bleustein CB, Eckholdt H, Arezzo JC, Melman A: Effects of circumcision on male penile sensitivity (abstract 100769). Am Urol Assoc 98th Ann Meet Chicago, April 2003.
Enkul T, Iserl C, Sen B, Karademlr K, Saracoglu F, Erden D: Circumcision in adults: Effects on sexual function. Urology 2004; 63: 155– 158.
btw, my claim "based on one website" is based off of one of the most popular anti-circumcision websites on the Internet, covering 30 potential years of research. But that's a legitimate conclusion I drew from the material they provided. I could easily be wrong if they have wrong information in the first place.
All of my arguments have been based off of CIRP.org. I'm using an anti-circumcision website's evidence against them. It's counter-intuitive. If their evidence was sound, it shouldn't be able to be done.
.. Steve when is the bris done ?
8 days after the birth of the male, barring a medical problem.
Last edited by Judah Maccabee; 12/14/2005 8:11am at .
Articles and Reviews
Tools and Info