US Circumcision Rates Plummet

[Uncutsouthernboy]

Uncut southern boy, the 5-7% post neonatal "for medical reasons" circumcisions are for people left uncut at birth and need to be cut later on.

Baby circumcision are not done for "medical" reasons, they are done for prevention/looks/social reasons. (jews do their circumcisions outside of the medical system, so "religious" reasons would not be counted anyways).

That is just what the article said. I just quoted it. I have read that some boys needed circumcising because their foreskins are so tight urine can not pass through and the foreskin balloons. Whatever.
I suppose that constitutes a "medical" reason.

 

[mandoman]

No. Ballooning is a normal stage, where the foreskin is detaching from the head.
Parents get all alarmed about it when they aren't acquainted with normal anatomy, but it's the truth.

 

[wallaboi]

I'm not ambivalent at all. Did I say there was anything wrong with discussing the topic? Thank you for jumping to conclusions and putting words in my mouth. I am well educated on the issue, and I hold definite opinions on it. I think it is a very important, serious topic for discussion, and judging by all the interest and emotion these threads generate, many feel the same. However, I would prefer people be educated and discuss it as civilly as possible. I also find the redundancy in the proliferation of new threads covering old ground to be tiresome.

I said exactly what I meant to say in my post:
To translate for you: I really think there should be a separate Circumcision Forum - since this is an extremely popular topic of discussion, it goes directly male phallic identity, and it's probably the most contentious topic on the board. If there were a separate forum, just maybe people would be curious enough to read some of the prior discussions before mindlessly introducing new threads along the lines of "Hey, I'm thinking of getting cut? [Or my friend wants to get her baby boy cut, etc.] What do you guys think? What are the pros and cons?" I also think posters should do a simple title search before introducing new threads that are completely redundant and have been covered extensively, such as this one introduced three months ago with 180 responses:

US circumcision rates drop to record low of 33%.​

So again, I thank you again for your analysis, but I said exactly what I meant to say.

No subtext, subconscious or otherwise.

I still don't understand why some people feel the need to chastise someone who starts a thread that is the same or similar to a previous thread. Does it really matter? Is there limited space available for new threads? If the topic has already been extensively discussed in another thread, rather than whinge about it why not direct the poster to the previous thread and we can all be better educated. Otherwise, ignore it and stay away rather than bump it to the top of the forum by making inane comments and not contributing an opinion on the topic.

 

[maxcok]

I still don't understand why some people feel the need to chastise someone who starts a thread that is the same or similar to a previous thread. Does it really matter? Is there limited space available for new threads? If the topic has already been extensively discussed in another thread, rather than whinge about it why not direct the poster to the previous thread and we can all be better educated. Otherwise, ignore it and stay away rather than bump it to the top of the forum by making inane comments and not contributing an opinion on the topic.

And what exactly have you 'contributed to the topic', pray tell? Have you expressed an 'opinion' relevant to the topic? What have you accomplished by 'bumping it to the top of the forum'? What are you 'whinging about'? Why are you singling me out when half a dozen posters have expressed the same sentiment in this thread, and dozens have expressed the same sentiment in other redundant threads?

As far as people being educated, it would be great if people could take a little initiative for themselves, rather than asking to be spoonfed the same information over and over and over. There's a terrific search engine here. Folks should familiarize themselves with it. I for one like to check the new threads when I log in to see if there's anything of interest. It's annoying having to wade through pages of inane and/or redundant crap to find something new, entertaining or interesting. Not to mention these circumcision threads almost always turn into a shitfest between people with very entrenched opinions, and hardly anyone is moved one way or the other.

I guess translating my post didn't help you, or it went past you, or you willfully ignored my elaboration. To reiterate, I was calling for a separate forum, and my comment was directed at the board in general, not any single poster. Believe me, if I were going to "chastise" anyone, I would be much more direct. Here's what I said. Try taking it at face value, and do me the favor of not trying to overinterpret my comments or psychoanalyze me in the future. Thanks.

Oh for crap's sake.

Can we have a Circumcision Forum already so we can at least assemble all the inevitable vitriol in one spot?

 

[JTalbain]

In a way I agree with you that we should have a separate forum for circumcision, but part of me likes it being in the "Healthy Penis" thread. I would like a sticky thread for the subject, however.

As far as people being educated, it would be great if people could take a little initiative for themselves, rather than being spoonfed the same information over and over and over. There's a terrific search engine here. Folks should familiarize themselves with it. I for one like to check the new threads when I log in to see if there's anything of interest. It's annoying having to wade through pages of inane and/or redundant crap to find something new, entertaining or interesting. Not to mention these circumcision threads almost always turn into a shit fest between people with very entrenched opinions.

That would be fantastic. I wish people would all go out and actually educate themselves on the subject. People have been debating circumcision on this site for years trying to get people to break out of their tradition-driven stances on circumcision and get them to think for themselves. If everyone went out and did this, we would have accomplished just that.

But yeah, these debates do turn into shit slinging parties. I'm kinda tired of spoonfeeding information myself. I suppose if LPSG isn't going to separate circumcision into its own forum or something, I could try compiling everything into one thread for the purposes of a grand debate on the subject. I'd be interested in seeing what the pro-circ guys have up their sleeves that makes them so convinced, or if they are just spouting long since disproven medical opinions.

 

[SirConcis]

No. Ballooning is a normal stage, where the foreskin is detaching from the head.
Parents get all alarmed about it when they aren't acquainted with normal anatomy, but it's the truth.

Ballooning is NEVER a normal stage. It can damage kidneys/urethta.

Theree is a difference between pinching the tip of foreskin for a second while you piss and having it permanently so narrow that urine has difficulty comeing out and instead inflates the foreskin.

 

[SirConcis]

If circumcision had its own forum, would there still be a need for the "healthy penis" forum ?

 

[mandoman]

Ballooning is NEVER a normal stage. It can damage kidneys/urethta.

Theree is a difference between pinching the tip of foreskin for a second while you piss and having it permanently so narrow that urine has difficulty comeing out and instead inflates the foreskin.

Care to back that up with a medical source?

Ballooning of the foreskin and physiological phimo... [BJU Int. 2004] - PubMed result

CONCLUSIONS Physiological phimosis with or without ballooning of the prepuce is not associated with noninvasive objective measures of obstructed voiding.

 

[JTalbain]

Care to back that up with a medical source?

Ballooning of the foreskin and physiological phimo... [BJU Int. 2004] - PubMed result

CONCLUSIONS Physiological phimosis with or without ballooning of the prepuce is not associated with noninvasive objective measures of obstructed voiding.

This is the kind of thing that should come out of this debate more often: legitimate medical answers to worries on the subject. Considering the source, I'm waiting for someone to accuse the British Journal or Urology of having an anti-circ bias. Seems like everyone with a study on the subject gets published there.

 

[wallaboi]

I guess translating my post didn't help you, or it went past you, or you willfully ignored my elaboration. To reiterate, I was calling for a separate forum, and my comment was directed at the board in general, not any single poster. Believe me, if I were going to "chastise" anyone, I would be much more direct. Here's what I said. Try taking it at face value, and do me the favor of not trying to overinterpret my comments or psychoanalyze me in the future. Thanks.

Just saying what I think. I'm not trying to single anyone out.

Moderators - Please merge this thread with the previous one on the same topic.
http://www.lpsg.org/197401-us-circumcision-rates-drop-to.html