Am I the only one who likes being circumcised ?

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

Yeah... no.

Yes, the current ethnic population of, say, France, is 85% White and 10% Arab, but that is for all ages.

Here's where you made your mistake (in my opinion).

The birth rate of ethnic French has been around 1.3 (well below replacement level) since the early 80s, while the birth rate for Arab immigrants has been much higher (3.9 to 5.0, depending on the particular ethnic Arab group). Also, illegal immigration is treated with pretty much the same level of diligence as here in the US.

Consequently, the balance is shifting rapidly and it is projected that ethnic Arabs will outnumber ethnic French by 2040 at the latest and probably by 2030.

This means that young Arabs outnumber young (ethnic) French and have for years, with the age for parity increasing monthly. While I have had the same difficulty as you in getting actual numbers, it is not unreasonable that the number of ethnic Arabs is significantly higher in the age groups most at-risk for HIV infection.

That (your last sentence) is a reasonable conclusion. But your original claim was not that the Muslim population decreases the HIV rate in Wesern Europe (agreed); it was that the lower HIV rate in Western Europe, versus the United States, can be explained by the Muslim population. This is not a reasonable conclusion. Here's why, again:

1. It is mathematically impossible for the variation in Muslim population alone to account for the difference in the HIV rates between Europe and the United States, unless Muslims account for 3/4 of the population. You're right that young people in Western Europe are more likely to be Muslim than the overall population -- I said as much in my previous post. The point is that this can't possibly account for the variance.

2. Even if Muslim population could explain the HIV variance between Western Europe and the United States (it can't), why do you attribute the variance to this factor instead of some other? Note, for instance, that Central Europe has a lower HIV rate than Eastern Europe and the United States. Clearly, there are multiple variables going on here. Even if it were mathematically possible (and it isn't), why would you choose the Muslim population as the likely variable here above all others?

I pointed both of these issues out in my last post, and I'm not sure why you didn't reply to them. (Observing that Muslims are disproportionately young does not resolve my rebuttal.)

(Also, I've never seen a source that claims that young people in France are majority Muslim...I'd be curious to see a source on that -- I'm not challenging you here; I'm genuinely interested.)

 

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

My observations of those who are extolling the virtue (or simply lack of danger) vis-a-vis circumcision lead me to conclude that science is not the leading driver in their conclusion, in most cases.

I don't think that science drives many people's arguments, period. I agree -- that sucks. I'm a big believer in addressing the best arguments possible, though, not the most common arguments.

Also, if you think that most Americans who perpetuate infant circumcision have a sound reason for doing so, I think you're almost certainly mistaken.

While your attitude seems eminently reasonable, and reasonably well-informed, I have perceived some oversights in your reasoning that are coloring your perceptions (see my immediately previous reply where you overlooked the age-specific population disparity between Arab and ethnic French populations in France).

Ugh, dude, this was not a substantive error in my argument. I'm aware that Muslims are disproportionately young, and I was aware of that at the start of this conversation. I have said, since post #1, that Muslims would need to represent 75% of the sample to account for a three-fold difference (0.6% to 0.2%), if the non-Muslim populations have equal HIV rates. I am also aware that the non-Muslim populations likely don't have equal HIV rates. I wasn't ignoring these facts; I was trying to keep things simple to avoid detracting from my main point, i.e., your apparent conclusion -- that it is reasonable to assume the difference in European vs. American HIV rates is based on Muslim population -- would require ~75% of Europeans to be Muslims. Even if you can indicate that 30-40% of the sexually active European population is Muslim, your conclusion is still unsubstantiated.

You're "correcting" me on a slight simplification I (knowingly) made when rebutting a gaping error in your logic, while not actually defeating the rebuttal.

Most of the people in this forum who criticize circumcision have concentrated on the mutilations (a very low number) and the supposed loss of sensitivity. Speaking as a circumcised man, if my glans were any more sensitive, orgasms would have caused blood vessels in my brain to rupture decades ago.

You do realize that increased fine-touch sensitivity wouldn't make orgasm stronger, right...? This is about fine-touch sensation during sex.

Regarding your item points:

1) The results I have seen were a 60% reduction in HIV infection rates for circumcised men in the same population groups. That is not "a pretty tiny margin".

You have to realize that's not how a cost-benefits analysis works.

The rate of transmission of HIV through heterosexual sex in the U.S. means that it would probably require a few thousand circumcisions to prevent one case of HIV. The costs associated with a few thousand circumcisions (anaesthetic, hospital treatment, surgical costs, etc.) would be at least $500,000, probably much more. That's not really an effective epidemiological policy. We have much more efficacious forms of HIV prevention. Moreover, circumcision is a fairly routine procedure, but the rate of poor outcome (painful erection, inability to masturbate without lubricant, personal dissatisfaction, whatever) is probably much higher than 1/2,000.

So, yes, we're talking about "pretty tiny margins" of efficacy here.

2 & 3) Unrelated to the topic at hand. We are talking about fear, not actual results.

Huh? When considering the ethics of pre-empting someone's consent on a medical decision, it's totally relevant whether the harm associated with vaccination is an actual result or merely an unsubstantiated fear. I could expand on this, but I actually want to make sure you disagree first, because that seems like a weird thing to contest.

4) Understandable, but parents are supposed to make the best decisions for their children. Circumcision at a young age eliminates infections due to improper cleaning of the foreskin that, left untreated, can cause serious damage.

I can't tell if you're basing this on any medical/empirical knowledge, or you're just assuming that this is a thing that happens. Serious infections of the foreskin are rare, and rarely require surgery. When they do, worst case scenario is generally circumcision. Also, children of a young age don't need to clean under their foreskin because it hasn't separated. On what basis do you believe this is a common concern that justifies circumcising infants en masse?

It's really strange to me that you get on my case about the (non-crucial) imprecision about the Muslim population share, but here you seem to be just spitballing pro-circumcision hypotheses without any research or empirical data or anything. Are you actually firmly convinced of your position, or are you just trying to play Devil's Advocate with me? I feel like it's the latter, but if it's the former, you're wildly shifting the burden of proof here.

5a) How do you define "need" in the first sentence?

A medical problem that doesn't resolve with non-surgical treatment, like topical creams or whatever. Most of those cases actually don't require a circumcision anymore (there are more conservative surgeries), but I'm trying to be as generous as possible with my numbers. Even using fairly generous numbers, infant circumcision is pretty dumb.

5b) I don't agree with your guess in the second sentence. It is highly unlikely (I'd go with "unbelievable") that men who are happy being circumcised would join a forum such as this to state that they are happy would do so in the same percentage as men who are unhappy. I only joined this thread because I noticed the thread title on the right side of the browser window. Therefore, it is impossible to develop any numbers to determine the level of dissatisfaction.

You think the number of men who would prefer to not be circumcised is less than 2%? I'm aware that a perfectly randomized, representative sample is impossible, but seriously, you think the dissatisfaction rate is likely fewer than 1-in-50? That would require insane self-selection bias in threads like these.

 

[joetiger]

Being from Ireland, I like the look of my circumcised penis. There are more cut guys in Ireland than people think there are.

 

[DickJagger]

i hate being cut. I cant wear a speedo without having my head imprint showing.

 

[craigsmith]

I was cut at age 40 and I am glad. It is easier to keep clean since my foreskin was really tight and would not pull back and when I could get it back it hurt like hell. The head was so sensitive and it was really hard to keep clean. I developed a growth on the foreskin and had to be circ. I am thankful. If the foreskin would have pulled back easily and I could have cleaned easily I probably would not think the way I do.

 

[TLCTugger]

my foreskin was really tight

Too bad you didn't just stretch it looser instead of cutting it off. Foreskin feels REALLY good.

 

[P51Geo1980]

I was circumcised a few weeks ago and love it so far. Prior to being circumcised, I had kept my foreskin permanently retracted for a number of years and just found it more comfortable for me with my glans exposed all the time. I also think it looks much better now with a smooth shaft instead of wrinkly skin.

 

[LondonExplorer]

I was cut at age 21 because I basically outgrew my foreskin.

It was uncomfortable for a week but after that I loved it and never looked back.

 

[tellme2]

I love my cut cock! But on the other hand love to suck on uncut cocks too!

 

[Hatt_101]

I'm cut and I like being the way I am given I cut cut before I can remember so I don't know what it's like the other way but I like the way I am. And a lot of girls like it better too

There seems to be hardly anyone around who prefers being circumcised.

Guys from the UK and Europe all seem to be uncircumcised.
Guys from America seem to be circumcised but loads are restoring their foreskinby stretching the remaining skin.

I grew up in the UK with a foreskin but decided to get myself circumcised when I was 16. I much prefer it. My penis is cleaner, it's more hygenic, it looks better, my girlfriend prefers it, and above all the most sensitive part (the glans) gets full stimulation.

I know I'm probably in a minority here but is there anyone else out there who is circumcised and prefers it ??

 

[wilderness]

was cut as an infant. i'm satisfied with my dick and it's size (slightly above average).

i love the sensations on the head of my cock especially (fucking - being sucked and jacking) but i always wonder how much better it might feel if i was never cut.

 

[Jeffin90620]

1. It is mathematically impossible for the variation in Muslim population alone to account for the difference in the HIV rates between Europe and the United States, unless Muslims account for 3/4 of the population. You're right that young people in Western Europe are more likely to be Muslim than the overall population -- I said as much in my previous post. The point is that this can't possibly account for the variance.

You keep saying that it is mathematically impossible, but that is not the case.

As I stated in an earlier post, the birth rate for ethnic French is 1.3 (and has been since the late 70s) while the birth rate for ethnic Arabs from different countries ranges from 3.5 to something over 5 (I forget the exact number). If the average for all the Arab immigrant groups is only 3.9, then that would mean that 3 of every 4 children born in France for the past 35+ years is of Arab descent. That's your 75% right there and it doesn't even account for young immigrants, which would skew the numbers even further.

 

[matt121matt121]

i hate being cut. I cant wear a speedo without having my head imprint showing.

theres a bunch of other reasons i dont like being cut..

but my head showing in a speedo isn't one of them.. it can be a hot look.

and a fun game to determine if someones cut or not thru their speedo

I was circumcised a few weeks ago and love it so far. Prior to being circumcised, I had kept my foreskin permanently retracted for a number of years and just found it more comfortable for me with my glans exposed all the time. I also think it looks much better now with a smooth shaft instead of wrinkly skin.

pics?

I was cut at age 21 because I basically outgrew my foreskin.

It was uncomfortable for a week but after that I loved it and never looked back.

outgrew your foreskin? i would of thought being in london doctors would of been aware of less drastic solutions

 

[londonredhead]

Why does anyone want to be circumcised - it is beyond me! Never know what to do with one and honestly puts me off.

And don't start on the health issue ... whip it back and wash your foreskin. Job done

 

[D_Juan_Grande]

I don't know anything other than having a cut cock and I wouldn't have it any other way. Having said that I have seen some fantastic cocks with very nice foreskins. In my experience though, 80% of men with a foreskin always have a stinky cock, is it that difficult to wash??

 

[ukboy]

Yes cut is way cleaner - I can say that with 100% certainty as I have experienced both as I got cut last year. Absolutely love being circumcised and so glad I will never be uncut again!

 

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

You keep saying that it is mathematically impossible, but that is not the case.

As I stated in an earlier post, the birth rate for ethnic French is 1.3 (and has been since the late 70s) while the birth rate for ethnic Arabs from different countries ranges from 3.5 to something over 5 (I forget the exact number). If the average for all the Arab immigrant groups is only 3.9, then that would mean that 3 of every 4 children born in France for the past 35+ years is of Arab descent. That's your 75% right there and it doesn't even account for young immigrants, which would skew the numbers even further.

First, having a birth rate of 3.5:1.3 does not mean that Arabs suddenly become 75% of the population. Ugh, dude, think before you post. If Muslims are 10/100 people and non-Muslims 90/100 people, and Muslims have 3.5 kids and non-Muslims 1.3, that means the next generation would have 35 Muslims and 117 non-Muslims. It would be 23% Muslim, not 75%. Also, I have no idea where the hell you're getting these birth rates. The source I found said Algerian immigrants have a birth rate of 1.78, Moroccans 3.23, Tunisians 2.73, and Turks (the most common Muslim immigrants) 2.16. Also, 80% of 2010 newborns in France had two French parents. At this point, I'm going to have to ask you for a source for your claim that French newborns are overwhelmingly Muslim, because none of this data suggests that.

Second, the HIV rate is recorded over the overall population (or the population in a certain age range.) Variation in the HIV rate is most heavily influenced by the young; that's true. However, your claim that 75% of the young are Muslims -- even if true -- would be insufficient. The denominator of this statistic is the full population, not just if they're sexually active. Certainly, the sexually active have disproportionate influence on the variation in this statistic. Shifting the denominator to only include the young doesn't make sense; the denominator still includes older populations.

Finally, these statistics are for Western Europe, not France.

***

Now, if you do the math correctly, 68% of French included in the statistics, sexually active or otherwise, would have to be Muslim, for your claim to be accurate:

Let's say the United States is 0.5% Muslim, and assume that Muslims have an HIV rate of 0%, which of course isn't true, but is t. In order to have a 0.6% overall rate, that would mean the non-Muslim population (99.5%) would have to have an HIV rate of 0.05(0%)+0.95(x%), which renders x=0.0063=0.63%. So, a liberal estimation for the non-Muslim HIV rate in the U.S. is 0.63%. Follow me so far?

Now, if the difference in HIV rates between the U.S. and Western Europe can be attributed to difference in Muslim population, and the two have an identical non-Muslim HIV rate (again, not true, but I'm being as generous to your argument as possible), the problem becomes x(0%)+(1-x)(0.63%)=0.2%. If your hypothesis that the difference can be attributed (solely, apparently) to variation in Muslim population, the Muslim percent of the sample population would have to be at least x, or about 68%. (This is even if our sample was exclusively the sexually active population, which again it isn't, but I'm being generous to your argument.)

It does not matter that Muslims are over-represented among the sexually active population, because if Muslim population is the explanatory variable, Muslims would have to equal 68% of the sample population. Even if the sample population was limited exclusively to the young, which it is not, they are not 68% of people 14-30 either.

The conclusion here: Even if Muslim population is a part of the lower HIV rate in Western Europe, it cannot possibly account for most -- let alone -- all of the variation, between math.

In any case, why did you ignore the entire rest of my post? For instance, the point where I noted that your same methodology, when applied to the variation in HIV rates between Central and Eastern Europe, would fail? Failing to apply a methodology uniformly is called special pleading, and it's illogical and disingenuous.

I wish you'd put as much effort into thinking through your arguments as I am.

 

[821746]

You enjoy having a healthy part of your body amputated? How strange. Sorry for your loss. My condolences.

 

[821746]

Too the lot of you who say shit about uncut being less clean. I dunno who's dicks you been sucking. You must be sleeping with bums or something. I've never had smegma, nor an offensive odor come from my dick.

Here's the fact. If you're against being intact and complete, then clearly you hate yourself and you know you were raped with a knife against your will, and you can't do shit about that, so you get on the defense and trash talk being intact because you're jealous and wish you weren't fucked over. You have a case of "Stockholm Syndrome" because you are trained to believe that it's normal to have a part of your dick cut off.

^_______^

 

[TLCTugger]

Too the lot of you who say shit about uncut being less clean. I dunno who's dicks you been sucking. You must be sleeping with bums or something. I've never had smegma, nor an offensive odor come from my dick.

Here's the fact. If you're against being intact and complete, then clearly you hate yourself and you know you were raped with a knife against your will, and you can't do shit about that, so you get on the defense and trash talk being intact because you're jealous and wish you weren't fucked over. You have a case of "Stockholm Syndrome" because you are trained to believe that it's normal to have a part of your dick cut off.

^_______^

If you didn't choose to be cut, someone literally held you down and made you his bitch, cutting off part of your body. What kind of man doesn't fight back against that mistreatment?