Circumcision...The Science

123scotty

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Posts
562
Media
4
Likes
53
Points
213
Location
scotland
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
I am amazed that two people have a wonderful thing a newborn baby. Promise to keep and look after him. Help and encourage in any way possible. ohh yes and Unnecessarily sexual mutilate him by cutting of his foreskin. This is a personal choice that should be left until he is at an age to make his own decision. i find it sad this brutal practice is allowed to be done.
 
S

SirConcis

Guest
Mandoman, circumcision is not the ONLY factor that affects sexually transmitted diseases. In fact, it is a small factor. Education, lifestyles, promiscuity are far greater factors.

And it is those factors which are different in europe than in USA and result in lower rates of various diseases.

What is not known is how much worse the statistics would be had the USA never adopted circumcision. When you consider the highly promiscusou era of the 1960s and 1970s in the USA, the spread of STDs might have be much worse has the USA not been circumcised. And had the USA not been circumcised, differences in STD statistics would then be attributed solely to social factors such as education, promiscuity, hygiene levels etc.

The circumcision difference between USA and europe introduces another variable, one which likely attenuated the differences of the other much more important factors.
 

Titsdude21

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Posts
405
Media
1
Likes
36
Points
113
Location
australia
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Male
Mandoman, circumcision is not the ONLY factor that affects sexually transmitted diseases. In fact, it is a small factor. Education, lifestyles, promiscuity are far greater factors.

And it is those factors which are different in europe than in USA and result in lower rates of various diseases.

What is not known is how much worse the statistics would be had the USA never adopted circumcision. When you consider the highly promiscusou era of the 1960s and 1970s in the USA, the spread of STDs might have be much worse has the USA not been circumcised. And had the USA not been circumcised, differences in STD statistics would then be attributed solely to social factors such as education, promiscuity, hygiene levels etc.

The circumcision difference between USA and europe introduces another variable, one which likely attenuated the differences of the other much more important factors.

Got a reference for that? or is it something you have just made up?
 

Titsdude21

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Posts
405
Media
1
Likes
36
Points
113
Location
australia
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Male
but
Whether something is a human rights breach can not be decided by science. Indeed "science" wrongly applied may be an impediment. Plenty of human rights horrors have been committed in the name of "science".

If you have a better way to decide such a thing let me know?
 

Titsdude21

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Posts
405
Media
1
Likes
36
Points
113
Location
australia
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Male
Anyway this thread has been a totaly fail.

Only 3 or 4 posts that actually had evidence for what they were saying with the rest just being mindless bullshit.

People failed to get the idea of science, and wanted another chance to say how much they loved their cut/uncut cock (no surprise there).

So anyways feel free to keep posting and shitting out about what ever you feel like making up.


P.S.
Thank you to those posters who actually bothered to find some evidence for what they were saying. I read those references and found all of them interesting in various ways. Cheers.
 

SpankySD

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Posts
59
Media
13
Likes
101
Points
103
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
I just reviewed the professional medical recommendations on circumcision. Canada and Australian pediatric societies started recommending not to circumcise in the 70's. The American Academy or Pediatrics started vacillating on the issue in 1971, but by 1977 concluded the following: "there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period" (AAP, 1977, p. 110).

Since then, studies have shown a higher incidence if STD transmission, and particularly HIV transmission to and from uncut guys. As of 1989, the recommendation by the AAP was as follows: "has potential health benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks" (Task Force on Circumcision, 1989, p. 391). By 1999, the recommendation was as follows: "existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision" (Task Force on Circumcision, 1999, p. 693).

Depending on the study, the data show that the incidence of infection for uncut males is 2.4-14% higher than cut guys. But this incidence is often related to problems like phimosis (un-retractable foreskin) which prevents proper hygiene. 13 states' medicaid programs will no longer pay for circumcision, as it is deemed an unnecessary procedure.

My personal opinion is that boys should be left intact, unless there is a medical reason to circumcise. If a guy wants to be circumcised, he has that option. A guy who has been circumcised neonatally does not have that option.
 

Snozzle

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Posts
1,422
Media
6
Likes
318
Points
403
Location
South Pacific
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Originally Posted by Snozzle
Whether something is a human rights breach can not be decided by science. Indeed "science" wrongly applied may be an impediment. Plenty of human rights horrors have been committed in the name of "science".
If you have a better way to decide such a thing let me know?
Well one non-scientific ethical standard that has been in use for a very long time is the Golden Rule, or rather, its more cautious variant, the Silver Rule: Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you.

It applies pretty well here. I can think of few circumstances under which anyone would ever want part of their genitals cut off. Pressing medical need would do. "Parental rights", parental whim, social conformity, slight reductions in rare diseases or diseases of late onset that could wait for them to decide for themselve, would not.

Therefore, lacking pressing medical need, don't do it to babies - whether or not you are related to them.
 
Last edited:

Snozzle

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Posts
1,422
Media
6
Likes
318
Points
403
Location
South Pacific
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I just reviewed the professional medical recommendations on circumcision. Canada and Australian pediatric societies started recommending not to circumcise in the 70's. The American Academy or Pediatrics started vacillating on the issue in 1971, but by 1977 concluded the following: "there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period" (AAP, 1977, p. 110).

Since then, studies have shown a higher incidence if STD transmission, and particularly HIV transmission to and from uncut guys. As of 1989, the recommendation by the AAP was as follows: "has potential health benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks" (Task Force on Circumcision, 1989, p. 391). By 1999, the recommendation was as follows: "existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision" (Task Force on Circumcision, 1999, p. 693).
The AAP policy is very culture-bound and personality-driven. The former Chair of the Taskforce on Circumcision, Edgar Schoen, has written poetry in favour of circumcision. The current chair, Douglas Diekema, chaired the "bioethics" committee that wanted to allow a token ritual nick of girls' genitals, until it was slapped down. The most recent update of their male circumcion policy has been delayed for years, probably because of infighting.
 

mandoman

Cherished Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Posts
3,454
Media
0
Likes
324
Points
148
Location
MA
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
I just reviewed the professional medical recommendations on circumcision. Canada and Australian pediatric societies started recommending not to circumcise in the 70's. The American Academy or Pediatrics started vacillating on the issue in 1971, but by 1977 concluded the following: "there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period" (AAP, 1977, p. 110).

Since then, studies have shown a higher incidence if STD transmission, and particularly HIV transmission to and from uncut guys. As of 1989, the recommendation by the AAP was as follows: "has potential health benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks" (Task Force on Circumcision, 1989, p. 391). By 1999, the recommendation was as follows: "existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision" (Task Force on Circumcision, 1999, p. 693).

Depending on the study, the data show that the incidence of infection for uncut males is 2.4-14% higher than cut guys. But this incidence is often related to problems like phimosis (un-retractable foreskin) which prevents proper hygiene. 13 states' medicaid programs will no longer pay for circumcision, as it is deemed an unnecessary procedure.

My personal opinion is that boys should be left intact, unless there is a medical reason to circumcise. If a guy wants to be circumcised, he has that option. A guy who has been circumcised neonatally does not have that option.

Don't think so...
National Institutes of Health (US):
Prevalence of male circumcision and its association with HIV and sexually transmitted infections in a U.S. navy population.
University of Washington:
Circumcision and Acquisition of Human Papillomavirus Infecti... : Sexually Transmitted Diseases
Those folks actually seemed shocked that cut and uncut had the same infection rates.
Remember, the business of circumcision in the US is estimated between $270 million and $1 billion. For that kind of money, who wouldn't force some figures.
Check out the French rates of infection, then the Danish rates.
They are 1/10 the US rates, and they don't generally cut.
 

mandoman

Cherished Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Posts
3,454
Media
0
Likes
324
Points
148
Location
MA
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
If they sleep through it, does that mean that they didn't lose half the skin of their dick?
It's like date rape drugs, if she didn't feel it, is it rape?
When the kid wakes up, it's still gone, on the way to the biogen company or cosmetics firm, for profit beyond the surgery.
 

tamati

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Posts
1,875
Media
7
Likes
94
Points
308
Location
NorCal
Verification
View
Gender
Male
how is penis mutilation without permission any different than getting drugged and waking up in a bathtub of ice with one of your kidneys missing.

its nothing short of criminal torture.
 

thadjock

Mythical Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Posts
4,722
Media
7
Likes
58,243
Points
518
Age
47
Location
LA CA USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
If they sleep through it, does that mean that they didn't lose half the skin of their dick?
It's like date rape drugs, if she didn't feel it, is it rape?
When the kid wakes up, it's still gone, on the way to the biogen company or cosmetics firm, for profit beyond the surgery.

so..... if free market forces made it legal for men to sell their foreskin or for parents to sell their sons foreskin, in the same way they sell kidneys and other body parts in developing countries.......would there be a tidal wave of circumcisions?

how many men/parents would cut their cocks for cash, and how much or little money would motivate one to undergo permanent seperation?

also, if parents were selling their sons foreskins would there be more moral outrage than there is now when they're giving it away?

discuss
 

mandoman

Cherished Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Posts
3,454
Media
0
Likes
324
Points
148
Location
MA
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Circumcision is the best. Everybody who is somebody is circumcized

I forwarded your post to Leonardo DiCaprio, Josh Hartnett, Pierce Brosnan, Nick Cage, Mario Lopez, George Lopez, Sean Michaels, and the Pope.
They all laughed.
 

thadjock

Mythical Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Posts
4,722
Media
7
Likes
58,243
Points
518
Age
47
Location
LA CA USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male

surto

1st Like
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Posts
66
Media
2
Likes
1
Points
43
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
it's hard to be scientific when the ones performing the operations, urologists namely, know very little about human sexuality most of the time and have vested interests in performing the operations. The ones that have the means and medical training to study the effects of circumcision, especially the potential for decreased pleasure, are the ones who are making a living out of it... Would Philip morris study the negative health effects of tobacco, or a big pharma company disclose negative studies on their medicines? They use the old adage that people have been doing it for centuries (people have also been waging genocidal wars for ages...) and that's the end of the story. And then when your cock becomes an insensitive piece of leather at 40 or 50 you can also pay the medical establishment for your viagra to maintain an erection...
 

gymfresh

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Posts
1,633
Media
20
Likes
154
Points
383
Location
Rodinia
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Common sense should suffice.

Two countries, Allied Powers colleagues, at the end of World War II.

One country (USA) ramps up from about 60% infant circumcision to about 90%. The other country (UK) ramps down from about 30% infant circumcision to about 5%.

Fifty years later, what are the results? Virtually no real difference in health. However, one country spends over half a billion dollars a year on infant circumcision and related surgeries. For no net benefit.

Are many Brits proclaiming their approach is superior and trying to convince others to follow their example? No. Do British researchers study circumcision continuously looking for benefits? No.

Are many Americans proclaiming their approach is superior and trying to convince others to follow their example? Yes. Do American researchers study circumcision continuously looking for benefits? Yes.

Have Canada, Australia and New Zealand seen any measurable rise in STDs or sexual problems since moving away from infant circumcision 30+ years ago? No.

Circumcision experiment over. Declared a fad and a failure.
 

Uncutpete

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Posts
1,368
Media
133
Likes
7,220
Points
443
Location
New York (United States)
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
The circumcision difference between USA and europe introduces another variable, one which likely attenuated the differences of the other much more important factors.

Got a reference for that? or is it something you have just made up?

I have seen dozens of posts on this topic by this guy, Sirconcis. He never has a reference, never backs up anything he says about circumcision, is always full of phony information and supposition -- and continues on bravely to embrace ignorance in post after post, even after it is pointed out to him over and over.