[Kinitari]

Who cares about arguments in which sensitivity is subjective. You're still mutilating a kid who can't get that part back. Let them get all the info necessary and make that decision when they're older.

Not every decision i make for my child will i run by them first, this will probably be one of many.

[Cat Party]

Gaf logic is weird. All scientific studies are followed by fuck yeah science apart from foreskin gaf

Same problem with corporal punishment studies. People will disbelieve something that doesn't conform to pre-existing biases, no matter the source, and no matter how rational they think they are.

[Devolution]

Wow. lol. So you disagree with nearly every scientific study done? Also from the Journal of the American Medical Association: Bullshit right? Because Europeans are circumcised and stuff...

I want to know the methodology.

[Salvadora]

Not every decision i make for my child will i run by them first, this will probably be one of many.

This is a little different than choosing a name for example.

[Jburton]

You just bashed a study don by Johns Hopkins and then threw out completely irrelevant correlations to refute the study?

American study has no relevance worldwide.

Real life information based on infection rates in developed countries in relation to circumcision rates are far more valuable than a study for a small test group.

[News Bot]

Same problem with corporal punishment studies. People will disbelieve something that doesn't conform to pre-existing biases, no matter the source, and no matter how rational they think they are.

Yeah, I mean, it's not like studies can be potentially wrong or anything.

[Dennis]

[To Far Away Times]

This just in, doctors state that a direct correlation has been found between a decline in circumcisions and an increase in ugly penis and dick cheese.

[SquiddyCracker]

Haha, this thread:

[Cat Party]

Yeah, I mean, it's not like studies can be potentially wrong or anything.

I never suggested otherwise. But the way people employ their skepticism is telling.

[Funky Papa]

Gaf logic is weird. All scientific studies are followed by fuck yeah science apart from foreskin gaf

It happens when the studies are borderline unusable. It is extremely unclear and the CDC is pretty contundent at the end of its summary

3) confers only partial protection and should be considered only in conjunction with other proven prevention measures (abstinence, mutual monogamy, reduced number of sex partners, and correct and consistent condom use).

This is like saying, "yeah, you can take your anti-cancer chamomile, just don't forget your chemo, ok?".

Basically everybody needs to WRAP THE FUCK UP, which incidentally would make circumcision unnecessary even if somebody could ever find a very reliable, very strong relationship between foreskin and AIDS transmission.

Anybody going raw because he is cut (or getting circumcised because fuck condoms) is a an extremely dangerous dumbass.

[Magni]

Not every decision i make for my child will i run by them first, this will probably be one of many.

I feel sorry for your future male offspring.

[Sutton Dagger]

If the benefit is really that substantial, the person can get a circumcision when they are old enough to decide for themselves and sexually active for this to even be relevant. I would think that most men having the soundness of mind to consider this procedure would opt to use other (safer) methods of protecting themselves during sex. Win-win situation.

[Wafflecakes]

Wow. lol. So you disagree with nearly every scientific study done? Also from the Journal of the American Medical Association: Bullshit right? Because Europeans are circumcised and stuff... So wait until what age? 18? After >50% of people are already having sex? When it's a more difficult procedure with more risks? that would be pretty stupid.

How me a controlled study that removes the factors of cultural differences between cultures that do or do not circumcised their children.

(Hint: It does not exist.)

[News Bot]

I never suggested otherwise. But the way people employ their skepticism is telling.

The way people employ "welp, that proves that, dick cheese" is telling also.

[demon]

Not every decision i make for my child will i run by them first, this will probably be one of many.

chopping off part of his genitals may be a good one to run by him first.

[planar1280]

It happens when the studies are borderline unusable. It is extremely unclear and the CDC is pretty contundent at the end of its summary This is like saying, "yeah, you can take your anti-cancer chamomile, just don't forget your chemo, ok?". Basically everybody needs to WRAP THE FUCK UP, which incidentally would make circumcision unnecessary even if somebody could ever find a very reliable, very strong relationship between foreskin and AIDS transmission. Anybody going raw because he is cut (or getting circumcised because fuck condoms) is a an extremely dangerous dumbass.

You could call every study borderline with that logic

[WoodenLung]

I'm going to get circumcised so I can have unprotected sex with HIV infected. Fuck condoms!

[Kinitari]

Nonsense. Sort by prevalence and you'll recognise the US having a higher prevalence of HIV/AIDS than almost any European country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...revalence_rate

Well, that's strictly hiv, but point made

[nVidiot_Whore]

Who cares about arguments in which sensitivity is subjective. You're still mutilating a kid who can't get that part back. Let them get all the info necessary and make that decision when they're older.

And then there's the reality that less circumcision will result in more HIV infections.

You either do something about it, or consider your "genital mutilation" cause more important.

Because let's not pretend that everyone grows up and then would even have the health care to pay for an adult circumcision.. we are dealing with populations not just individuals when we look at what will "statistically happen."

So if Medicaid for instance is saying "Circumcisions not recommended or paid for" that means no poor kids get circumcisions. If Medicaid recommends and pays for them.. poor kids get circumcisions.

Reality of the former and current Medicaid policy is HIV and other infections spreading faster, according to these studies.. which appear to be numerous, and based on pretty obvious science.

I'm totally fine if your argument is that it doesn't matter what will statistically happen, it should be a choice either way, etc. But you still have to recognize the reality of the situation.

[crazygambit]

Oh a hospital wants more circumcisions done because of the thin link between circumcisions and disease contraction? Then says it would cost people more in the future because without being cut more disease contraction would occur? Uhuh.

So true. Doesn't anyone find it actually dangerous to say stuff like that? It's coming dangerously close to telling circumcised men to have unprotected sex because they have a lower chance of getting STDs, which is just crazy IMO.

[Jburton]

Wow. lol. So you disagree with nearly every scientific study done? Also from the Journal of the American Medical Association: Bullshit right? Because Europeans are circumcised and stuff... So wait until what age? 18? After >50% of people are already having sex? When it's a more difficult procedure with more risks? that would be pretty stupid.

Facts is facts, Europe has a lower HIV infection rate and most men have foreskins.

Americen men are mostly cut and there is more HIV etc.

These values on such a massive scale make any study based on limited numbers of a study group irrelevant.

[Tesseract]

abort fetus, ok. circumcise newborn, mutilation.

[Magni]

On a side note, I feel it should be illegal to circumcise your child specifically for religious reasons. Your child has a right to choose his own religion. If he wants to be Jewish or Muslim, he can do it when he's a mature adult.

FWIW, I'm against infant baptisms as well, but those don't really have consequences for the child like circumcision does.

[Angry Puppy]

uncut that is cleaned > cut > uncut that is not cleaned

[Salvadora]

This just in, doctors state that a direct correlation has been found between a decline in circumcisions and an increase in ugly penis and dick cheese.

Have you ever heard of hygiene?

[Funky Papa]

You could call every study borderline with that logic

Funny, because I didn't point out why I think it's borderline unusable.

[News Bot]

And then there's the reality that less circumcision will result in more HIV infections.

...How? This is something you should really, really consider before calling something "reality".

If you fuck someone with HIV, you are more than likely going to get HIV. Your uncut dick doesn't just capture diseases like a Venus Fly Trap when it's in your trousers.

uncut that is cleaned > cut > uncut that is not cleaned

We have a winner.

[Hoo-doo]

And then there's the reality that less circumcision will result in more HIV infections. You either do something about it, or consider your "genital mutilation" cause more important. Because let's not pretend that everyone grows up and then would even have the health care to pay for an adult circumcision.. we are dealing with populations not just individuals when we look at what will "statistically happen." So if Medicaid for instance is saying "Circumcisions not recommended or paid for" that means no poor kids get circumcisions. Reality of that is HIV and other infections spreading faster, according to these studies.. which appear to be numerous, and based on pretty obvious science. I'm totally fine if your argument is that it doesn't matter what will statistically happen, it should be a choice either way, etc. But you still have to recognize the reality of the situation

Except this is only true in the States. Maybe want to start educating the people on condom use instead of randomly chopping off bodyparts.

[Cat Party]

The way people employ "welp, that proves that, dick cheese" is telling also.

You've assumed, wrongly, that I've taken a side here. I'm just interested in how people's reaction to the validity of a study varies depending on whether they agree with the findings.

[Al-ibn Kermit]

Let's say you could establish that the rate of transmission is a small percentage higher for uncut. At what rate is acceptable to encourage such a procedure when STI transmission can mostly be avoided via good education, contraception and testing? Is it really worth it?

I guess society would then have to objectify the difference in sensitivity and aesthetics and collect all these factors together to come to agreement on what specific solutions have the best overall effect in maximizing happiness.

[planar1280]

On a side note, I feel it should be illegal to circumcise your child specifically for religious reasons. Your child has a right to choose his own religion. If he wants to be Jewish or Muslim, he can do it when he's a mature adult. FWIW, I'm against infant baptisms as well, but those don't really have consequences for the child like circumcision does.

That isa ridiculous statement.

[SquiddyCracker]

The vitriol spewed from both sides is quite shocking.

"dick cheese"
Really?

[demon]

And then there's the reality that less circumcision will result in more HIV infections. You either do something about it, or consider your "genital mutilation" cause more important. Because let's not pretend that everyone grows up and then would even have the health care to pay for an adult circumcision.. we are dealing with populations not just individuals when we look at what will "statistically happen." So if Medicaid for instance is saying "Circumcisions not recommended or paid for" that means no poor kids get circumcisions. If Medicaid recommends and pays for them.. poor kids get circumcisions. Reality of the former and current Medicaid policy is HIV and other infections spreading faster, according to these studies.. which appear to be numerous, and based on pretty obvious science. I'm totally fine if your argument is that it doesn't matter what will statistically happen, it should be a choice either way, etc. But you still have to recognize the reality of the situation.

It's still addressing a problem that can be addressed in other ways by by forcibly removing a part of boys' genitals.

[danwarb]

Facts is facts, Europe has a lower HIV infection rate and most men have foreskins. Americen men are mostly cut and there is more HIV etc. These values on such a massive scale make any study based on limited numbers of a study group irrelevant.

Indeed. Why would HIV infection rates increase in the US if they're lower in uncircumcised Europe. What other factors?

[News Bot]

You've assumed, wrongly, that I've taken a side here. I'm just interested in how people's reaction to the validity of a study varies depending on whether they agree with the findings.

I'm not even referring to you so I haven't assumed anything. I actually agree with you, I was just stating that the opposite is true also. Lest anyone misunderstand you and think you've taken a side by only mentioning one. ;)

[Magni]

That isa ridiculous statement.

Please tell me what's ridiculous about it.

A and B are Muslim. They have a son, C, who they decide to have circumcised for religious purposes.

C decides to become an atheist 20 years later, but he has to keep his Muslim penis all his life. Why?

[Wafflecakes]

That isa ridiculous statement.

I don't see anything wrong with what he said. Saying that people should have the right to choose what happens to their bodies is ridiculous to you?

[Kinitari]

chopping off part of his genitals may be a good one to run by him first.

You people act like there are hosts of people who have been circumcised and hate their parents for it. They exist, but in like... the thousands. My kid probably won't care, or will appreciate it - statically speaking

[planar1280]

Funny, because I didn't point out why I think it's borderline unusable.

Same rule applies regardless, study after study show health benefits in the long run

[Salvadora]

You people act like there are hosts of people who have been circumcised and hate their parents for it. They exist, but in like... the thousands. My kid probably won't care, or will appreciate it - statically speaking

Are you serious?

[Magni]

You people act like there are hosts of people who have been circumcised and hate their parents for it. They exist, but in like... the thousands. My kid probably won't care, or will appreciate it - statically speaking

Why not let him have a full healthy penis and not run the risk of him hating you for fucking up his penis? It's his penis.

I understand parents making decisions in terms of education, of diet, but a fucking body part being cut off? Really?

[Devolution]

http://www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/20...Boyle-Hill.pdf

Are these the studies JAMA uses?

[planar1280]

Please tell me what's ridiculous about it. A and B are Muslim. They have a son, C, who they decide to have circumcised for religious purposes. C decides to become an atheist 20 years later, but he has to keep his Muslim penis all his life. Why?

You are born a muslim or jew in a muslim or jew family unless its a new rule which says you are born agnostic.

[Hoo-doo]

You people act like there are hosts of people who have been circumcised and hate their parents for it. They exist, but in like... the thousands. My kid probably won't care, or will appreciate it - statically speaking

Seeing as only 50% or less of his generation is getting cut, i'd say it's a decision you should leave to him, who knows what the US general public's stance on circumcision is by then.

[Salvadora]

http://www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/20...Boyle-Hill.pdf Are these the studies JAMA uses?

That's one argument that is knocked off the table.

[Scullibundo]

Lot of helmet envy in this thread. Understandable. We cut folk often draw the ire of the 'foot half in the sock' plebs. I thank Xenu everyday for making the decision for me at a point where I wouldn't remember it.

I mean, do some of you guys wish doctors never removed your umbilical cords from your bellybuttons without asking you? Come on!

[Wafflecakes]

You are born a muslim or jew in a muslim or jew family unless its a new rule which says you are born agnostic.

The idea that someone is born as part of a religion is insane.

You are born with no beliefs whatsoever. (couldn't be born agnostic either)

[nVidiot_Whore]

Except this is only true in the States. Maybe want to start educating the people on condom use instead of randomly chopping off bodyparts.

Yes, if you and your entire country are extremely responsible your penis anatomy won't matter as there won't be HIV to catch in the first place.

We have a lot of our own breed of of poverty here in the states.. the exact people who are most at risk later in life for HIV infection would be getting their health care decisions made for them by Medicaid when they are children.

You separate culture, etc. in a study like this and then you have to apply it to a given population.

Here in the US, with our large "at risk" population this could be extremely significant information.

[Magni]

You are born a muslim or jew in a muslim or jew family unless its a new rule which says you are born agnostic.

You are born in a Muslim or a Jewish family. You are not born with religious convictions as an infant.

So yes, you are born agnostic. Are you really trying to tell me that infants care about religion when they come out of the womb?