First uncircumcized joint I saw belonged to a fellow Soulstrutter (though at the time, Soulstrut wasn't even a thing). In the bathroom at the Fillmore, both of us at the trough [is there a more unpleasant male bathroom experience than the trough?], dude leaned backed and asked me, "Ever seen smegma?" and rolled his hoodie back.
We're tight like that, so it wasn't really a big deal for me, but the other dudes at the trough gave us the stink eye.
Cross-reference the Most Memorable Concert (Memory Related) thread.
First uncircumcized joint I saw belonged to a fellow Soulstrutter (though at the time, Soulstrut wasn't even a thing). In the bathroom at the Fillmore, both of us at the trough [is there a more unpleasant male bathroom experience than the trough?], dude leaned backed and asked me, "Ever seen smegma?" and rolled his hoodie back.
We're tight like that, so it wasn't really a big deal for me, but the other dudes at the trough gave us the stink eye.
Cross-reference the Most Memorable Concert (Memory Related) thread.
Like .
I think this just brought the convo to a momentary stand-still.
I wish i knew the name, but there was a GREAT BBC documentary on this subject where a guy and his dad (?!) interview people from UK to US: Rabbis, the Muslim equivalent (sorry, dont know the word), doctors, obgyns, women, men, cut, uncut, gay, straight this was a great doc in an informative yet informal style, it helped me when making the decision regarding my son.
hunt it down, im sure its available online somewhere.
We're Jewish and decided against circumcision (seems unnecessary) which, for my wife's family, was the soul strut equivalent of Faux Rillz's children telling him that he didn't like Ciara's work. My MOI told my wife that SHE feels incomplete and I had to tell her that it was her own idea to get a nose job. . My Father-in-law was clearly upset. When I asked him what was up he said, "You know the grandfather gets to hold the baby during the briss?" To which my wife replied "So what's upsetting you is you're missing your star turn in my son's penis cutting". I had to laugh.
We're Jewish and decided against circumcision (seems unnecessary) which, for my wife's family, was the soul strut equivalent of Faux Rillz's children telling him that he didn't like Ciara's work. My MOI told my wife that SHE feels incomplete and I had to tell her that it was her own idea to get a nose job. . My Father-in-law was clearly upset. When I asked him what was up he said, "You know the grandfather gets to hold the baby during the briss?" To which my wife replied "So what's upsetting you is you're missing your star turn in my son's penis cutting". I had to laugh.
jokes aside, maybe they were just upset that you guys had, you know, forsaken a sacred covenant between G-d and our people that has existed for millenia.
We're Jewish and decided against circumcision (seems unnecessary) which, for my wife's family, was the soul strut equivalent of Faux Rillz's children telling him that he didn't like Ciara's work. My MOI told my wife that SHE feels incomplete and I had to tell her that it was her own idea to get a nose job. . My Father-in-law was clearly upset. When I asked him what was up he said, "You know the grandfather gets to hold the baby during the briss?" To which my wife replied "So what's upsetting you is you're missing your star turn in my son's penis cutting". I had to laugh.
jokes aside, maybe they were just upset that you guys had, you know, forsaken a sacred covenant between G-d and our people that has existed for millenia.
As for medical reasons, I can't see any really convincing arguments.
Reduced incidence of urinary tract infections in men Reduction in the transmission of HIV, syphilis, genital herpes and chancroid Reduced transmission of HPV
These, in my opinion, are all sound and compelling medical arguments. You can verify any of these by doing a search here, as Mike suggested. All of the links will lead you to abstracts of studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals.
UTI's are as rare as sealed copy of boscoe and a lot more likely to occur in infants than they are in grown men (and can be easily treated without unnecessary surgery)
If circumcision reduces HIV so greatly, than why does the US (a country where almost 90% of its adult male residents are circumcised) have one of the highest HIV rates when compared to other modernized countries?
Breast cancer is alot more prevelent than anything you've mentioned...would you be willing to have a breast surgically removed to lower your chances of breast cancer by a whopping 50%?
UTI's are as rare as sealed copy of boscoe and a lot more likely to occur in infants than they are in grown men (and can be easily treated without unnecessary surgery).
If circumcision reduces HIV so greatly, than why does the US (a country where almost 90% of its adult male residents are circumcised) have one of the highest HIV rates when compared to other modernized countries?
Breast cancer is alot more prevelent than anything you've mentioned...would you be willing to have a breast surgically removed to lower your chances of breast cancer by a whopping 50%?
I'm not sure I understand this line of reasoning at all. Comparing protection from STDs to a prophylactic measure for breast cancer is not an apt comparison whatsoever. I can't debate this faulty logic.
It's true that UTIs are low in boys (something like 2% in males under the age of 1), but how does that negate the benefit of circumcision? This has been studied repeatedly with the same result: circumcision = less UTIs. This premise is no less valid than the arguments to "leave it alone." I never said, "Circumcision prevents HIV, so you should do it." All I was arguing was that there are legitimate medical reasons to do it.
And I don't know what any of you mean by "rates" of HIV, either. Are we talking incidence, new cases, percentages, or statistics for full-blown AIDS? Yes, the absolute number of cases seems high in the US compared to certain European countries, but the fact remains that less than 1% of the adult population has HIV. The highest incidence of new infections is being seen in blacks and Hispanics, but the rate at which people have become infected in the US appears to have peaked in the late 90s, according to UN statistics. Incidentally, the lowest rates of infection are in Southwest Asia/Northern Africa (what people usually call the Middle East), where circumcision is performed among Jews and Muslims for religious purposes. If anyone knew the exact reasons why the incidence is what it is in our country (although I certainly have some ideas), why couldn't we prevent it from getting so high in the first place?
UTI's are as rare as sealed copy of boscoe and a lot more likely to occur in infants than they are in grown men (and can be easily treated without unnecessary surgery).
If circumcision reduces HIV so greatly, than why does the US (a country where almost 90% of its adult male residents are circumcised) have one of the highest HIV rates when compared to other modernized countries?
Breast cancer is alot more prevelent than anything you've mentioned...would you be willing to have a breast surgically removed to lower your chances of breast cancer by a whopping 50%?
I'm not sure I understand this line of reasoning at all. Comparing protection from STDs to a prophylactic measure for breast cancer is not an apt comparison whatsoever. I can't debate this faulty logic.
It's true that UTIs are low in boys (something like 2% in males under the age of 1), but how does that negate the benefit of circumcision? This has been studied repeatedly with the same result: circumcision = less UTIs. This premise is no less valid than the arguments to "leave it alone." I never said, "Circumcision prevents HIV, so you should do it." All I was arguing was that there are legitimate medical reasons to do it.
And I don't know what any of you mean by "rates" of HIV, either. Are we talking incidence, new cases, percentages, or statistics for full-blown AIDS? Yes, the absolute number of cases seems high in the US compared to certain European countries, but the fact remains that less than 1% of the adult population has HIV. The highest incidence of new infections is being seen in blacks and Hispanics, but the rate at which people have become infected in the US appears to have peaked in the late 90s, according to UN statistics. Incidentally, the lowest rates of infection are in the Southwest Asia/Northern Africa (what people usually call the Middle East). If anyone knew the exact reasons why the incidence is what it is in our country (although I certainly have some ideas), why couldn't we prevent it from getting so high in the first place?
my reasoning is this:
All these bogus HIV studies mean two things...jack and shit. The US has conducted thier own experiment over the past 50+ years by circumcising males in an assembly line fashion and our HIV rates are horrible compared to other modernized (non-circumcising) countries.
-------moving along
you seem like you support circumcision because of a 1%-2% lowered risk of UTI's in infants ( a minor and treatable infection)...which again, is very rare in non-infants and in males in general. You also seem like you support circumcision based on a potential for a lowered HIV risk when only 1% of the population is infected. As pointed out, both of these are very rare and very unlikely to happen.
Breast cancer is much more common. Why not play the bigger odds with yourself and with your possible future daughter by removing a breast and lowering the chance of breast cancer by 50%?
Breast cancer is much more common. Why not play the bigger odds with yourself and with your possible future daughter by removing a breast and lowering the chance of breast cancer by 50%?
Coselmed actually addressed this line of argument earlier - namely by noting that the potential for complications that could arise from more radical surgery could negate the benefit it may offer.
Moreover, while I understand the point you're trying to make, it's hard to suggest that a masectomy = circumcision. These are two very different kinds of procedures. The latter, for example, does nothing to make men seem less masculine whereas the masectomy has, I think you would agree, far greater consequences in terms of both self and social identity for women.
If you're talking about surgical castration? Well - ok, that'd be fair comparison.
This said, I think this argument ultimately turns on this ratio:
Health benefits : loss of sexual benefit + surgical trauma on young children (most circumcisions are done without anesthesia I presume?)
Personally, the health benefits would have to be substantial to really make the case and I think this is where the debate largely turns for some (but obviously, not all).
Why not play the bigger odds with yourself and with your possible future daughter by removing a breast and lowering the chance of breast cancer by 50%?
Trying to equate lopping off an entire breast with snipping off foreskin is one of the lamest attempts at equivalency to come down the pike in a while.
Why not play the bigger odds with yourself and with your possible future daughter by removing a breast and lowering the chance of breast cancer by 50%?
Trying to equate lopping off an entire breast with snipping off foreskin is one of the lamest attempts at equivalency to come down the pike in a while.
i'm not equating circumcision with breast reduction
I'm trying to figure out why coselmed supports this, someone who supports a surgery on males that would lower thier risk of a minor infection--should also support a sugery on females that lowered a major cancer by 50%, shouldn't they?
Why not play the bigger odds with yourself and with your possible future daughter by removing a breast and lowering the chance of breast cancer by 50%?
Trying to equate lopping off an entire breast with snipping off foreskin is one of the lamest attempts at equivalency to come down the pike in a while.
i'm not equating circumcision with breast reduction
I'm trying to figure out why coselmed supports this, someone who supports a surgery on males that would lower thier risk of a minor infection--should also support a sugery on females that lowered a major cancer by 50%, shouldn't they?
Dude, YOU ARE EQUATING THE TWO. I don't see how you don't see that.
Coselmed actually addressed this line of argument earlier - namely by noting that the potential for complications that could arise from more radical surgery could negate the benefit it may offer.
and circumcision isn't a radical surgery? The fact that parents have a "choice" to cut off a normal functioning part of thier child's body is radical enough.
In Australia it's illegal to dock a dogs tail or crop its ears
In America it's still legal to cut off part of a child's penis
Why not play the bigger odds with yourself and with your possible future daughter by removing a breast and lowering the chance of breast cancer by 50%?
Trying to equate lopping off an entire breast with snipping off foreskin is one of the lamest attempts at equivalency to come down the pike in a while.
i'm not equating circumcision with breast reduction
I'm trying to figure out why coselmed supports this, someone who supports a surgery on males that would lower thier risk of a minor infection--should also support a sugery on females that lowered a major cancer by 50%, shouldn't they?
No, not at all--because you're talking about two completely different things: the removal of a small piece of skin versus the complete removal of an entire organ.
You said you're not making an equivalency, and then proceeded to make an equivalency. You are, in fact, trying to put circumcision on the same level as lopping off a breast on the grounds of disease reduction. It's a reductio ad absurdum made with a straight face. By that logic, shouldn't you be removing one of your lungs so as to avoid lung cancer?
Why not play the bigger odds with yourself and with your possible future daughter by removing a breast and lowering the chance of breast cancer by 50%?
Trying to equate lopping off an entire breast with snipping off foreskin is one of the lamest attempts at equivalency to come down the pike in a while.
i'm not equating circumcision with breast reduction
I'm trying to figure out why coselmed supports this, someone who supports a surgery on males that would lower thier risk of a minor infection--should also support a sugery on females that lowered a major cancer by 50%, shouldn't they?
Dude, YOU ARE EQUATING THE TWO. I don't see how you don't see that.
then maybe you can ask her why she wouldn't be willing to go through an unnecessary surgery but supports forcing it upon others?
[quote} By that logic, shouldn't you be removing one of your lungs so as to avoid lung cancer? by that logic? you mean the same logic of lowered % of UTI and HIV that she uses uses to support circumcision?
If you're gonna play it "safe" and cut part of your sons dicks off to lower his chance of an infection then why not...
have our teeth pulled to lower our chances of cavities by a few % points?
let's all have our fingers removed to lower the risk of paper cuts?
i'll stop beating around the bush and put it into plain english: circumcision is either for the lazy, un-informed, or the plain stupid. Be a parent and teach your son how to clean himself instead of cutting part of his dick off.
By that logic, shouldn't you be removing one of your lungs so as to avoid lung cancer?
by that logic? you mean the same logic of lowered % of UTI and HIV that she uses uses to support circumcision?
If you're gonna play it "safe" and cut part of your sons dicks off to lower his chance of an infection then why not...
have our teeth pulled to lower our chances of cavities by a few % points?
let's all have our fingers removed to lower the risk of paper cuts?
i'll stop beating around the bush and put it into plain english: circumcision is either for the lazy, un-informed, or the plain stupid. Be a parent and teach your son how to clean himself instead of cutting part of his dick off.
I think MFR put it best:
There is a very strong, almost vitriolic anti-circumcision voice out there that I would recommend not listening to.
In cases where men refuse to wear condoms (largely in Africa and India), circumcision is a great solution to reducing the incidence of HIV. Of course the medical arguments are weaker in the US, but I would liken circumcision to an outpatient procedure like having a mole cut off, certainly not an invasive "surgery" as you seem to imply.
If circumcision reduces HIV so greatly, than why does the US (a country where almost 90% of its adult male residents are circumcised) have one of the highest HIV rates when compared to other modernized countries?
What is Specious?
Breast cancer is alot more prevelent than anything you've mentioned...would you be willing to have a breast surgically removed to lower your chances of breast cancer by a whopping 50%?
What is ridiculous?
All these bogus HIV studies mean two things...jack and shit. The US has conducted thier own experiment over the past 50+ years by circumcising males in an assembly line fashion and our HIV rates are horrible compared to other modernized (non-circumcising) countries.
What is willfully ignorant? No, specious again, damn...
and circumcision isn't a radical surgery? The fact that parents have a "choice" to cut off a normal functioning part of thier child's body is radical enough.
In Australia it's illegal to dock a dogs tail or crop its ears
In America it's still legal to cut off part of a child's penis
What is comedy?
Thats todays daily double!
Also,
There is a very strong, almost vitriolic anti-circumcision voice out there that I would recommend not listening to.
The arguments here are just going back and forth. A vast majority of the men in the world are uncut. UTI is treatable with antibiotics. I bet if more research was put into why HIV rates are low in the middle east, lifestyle and their views of sex would play a large part in that. Circumcising men in Africa and India to reduce HIV is like putting a band-aid on a bullet wound.
This is a personal decision for parents to make and people need to chill out. No one is trying to cut anyone's dick off here.
ps. It seems like a lot of cut dudes are going au natural for their kiddos. Did you dudes miss your foreskin? Do you wish your parents' kept it on? Just wondering.
[pa to the sue]back in '97 this guy i worked with in seattle had some kind of medical issues in that part of town. the doctors told him straight up that the fact that he was live and "uncut" played a major part of said medical issue and if he didn't get his johnson tip cut soon that this would be a major recuring issue thru out his life. dude goes (at age 20) to have the procedure and for 2 weeks has to rock some kind of co2 can/hose jumpoff on his hip. the idea being that he needed to blast it with the contraption to assist in the healing process (keep it cool i guess). dude was in major pain on a daily basis. better to do that shit while the kid is young then wait for him to get grown and have to get the procedure done.[/pasue]
This is a personal decision for parents to make and people need to chill out. No one is trying to cut anyone's dick off here.
ps. It seems like a lot of cut dudes are going au natural for their kiddos. Did you dudes miss your foreskin? Do you wish your parents' kept it on? Just wondering.
pps. Penises are weird.
I can't miss what I never knew I had. It's one of those things where you can't really even imagine what it'd be like to have it back...like someone colorblind trying to conceive of full spectrum color, you know?
But yeah, if I had a son, I wouldn't have undergone the procedure. No offense to Cosel but I don't find that the health benefits are enough to justify the procedure.
This is a personal decision for parents to make and people need to chill out. No one is trying to cut anyone's dick off here.
ps. It seems like a lot of cut dudes are going au natural for their kiddos. Did you dudes miss your foreskin? Do you wish your parents' kept it on? Just wondering.
pps. Penises are weird.
I can't miss what I never knew I had. It's one of those things where you can't really even imagine what it'd be like to have it back...like someone colorblind trying to conceive of full spectrum color, you know?
But yeah, if I had a son, I wouldn't have undergone the procedure. No offense to Cosel but I don't find that the health benefits are enough to justify the procedure.
None taken.
I don't have a foreskin, so I'm not adamant about it either way. The only reason I responded to this thread in the first place is because I object to the suggestion that there are no sound medical arguments to support the position. To me, the arguments are sound; I don't think they're the sole reason people should allow the procedure, but I certainly don't think it weakens the argument, either.
Comments
We're tight like that, so it wasn't really a big deal for me, but the other dudes at the trough gave us the stink eye.
Cross-reference the Most Memorable Concert (Memory Related) thread.
Like
I think this just brought the convo to a momentary stand-still.
hunt it down, im sure its available online somewhere.
lolol
jokes aside, maybe they were just upset that you guys had, you know, forsaken a sacred covenant between G-d and our people that has existed for millenia.
just saying.
Real Jewz??? card pulling?
UTI's are as rare as sealed copy of boscoe and a lot more likely to occur in infants than they are in grown men (and can be easily treated without unnecessary surgery)
If circumcision reduces HIV so greatly, than why does the US (a country where almost 90% of its adult male residents are circumcised) have one of the highest HIV rates when compared to other modernized countries?
Breast cancer is alot more prevelent than anything you've mentioned...would you be willing to have a breast surgically removed to lower your chances of breast cancer by a whopping 50%?
I'm not sure I understand this line of reasoning at all. Comparing protection from STDs to a prophylactic measure for breast cancer is not an apt comparison whatsoever. I can't debate this faulty logic.
It's true that UTIs are low in boys (something like 2% in males under the age of 1), but how does that negate the benefit of circumcision? This has been studied repeatedly with the same result: circumcision = less UTIs. This premise is no less valid than the arguments to "leave it alone." I never said, "Circumcision prevents HIV, so you should do it." All I was arguing was that there are legitimate medical reasons to do it.
And I don't know what any of you mean by "rates" of HIV, either. Are we talking incidence, new cases, percentages, or statistics for full-blown AIDS? Yes, the absolute number of cases seems high in the US compared to certain European countries, but the fact remains that less than 1% of the adult population has HIV. The highest incidence of new infections is being seen in blacks and Hispanics, but the rate at which people have become infected in the US appears to have peaked in the late 90s, according to UN statistics. Incidentally, the lowest rates of infection are in Southwest Asia/Northern Africa (what people usually call the Middle East), where circumcision is performed among Jews and Muslims for religious purposes. If anyone knew the exact reasons why the incidence is what it is in our country (although I certainly have some ideas), why couldn't we prevent it from getting so high in the first place?
my reasoning is this:
All these bogus HIV studies mean two things...jack and shit. The US has conducted thier own experiment over the past 50+ years by circumcising males in an assembly line fashion and our HIV rates are horrible compared to other modernized (non-circumcising) countries.
-------moving along
you seem like you support circumcision because of a 1%-2% lowered risk of UTI's in infants ( a minor and treatable infection)...which again, is very rare in non-infants and in males in general. You also seem like you support circumcision based on a potential for a lowered HIV risk when only 1% of the population is infected. As pointed out, both of these are very rare and very unlikely to happen.
Breast cancer is much more common. Why not play the bigger odds with yourself and with your possible future daughter by removing a breast and lowering the chance of breast cancer by 50%?
Coselmed actually addressed this line of argument earlier - namely by noting that the potential for complications that could arise from more radical surgery could negate the benefit it may offer.
Moreover, while I understand the point you're trying to make, it's hard to suggest that a masectomy = circumcision. These are two very different kinds of procedures. The latter, for example, does nothing to make men seem less masculine whereas the masectomy has, I think you would agree, far greater consequences in terms of both self and social identity for women.
If you're talking about surgical castration? Well - ok, that'd be fair comparison.
This said, I think this argument ultimately turns on this ratio:
Health benefits : loss of sexual benefit + surgical trauma on young children (most circumcisions are done without anesthesia I presume?)
Personally, the health benefits would have to be substantial to really make the case and I think this is where the debate largely turns for some (but obviously, not all).
Trying to equate lopping off an entire breast with snipping off foreskin is one of the lamest attempts at equivalency to come down the pike in a while.
i'm not equating circumcision with breast reduction
I'm trying to figure out why coselmed supports this, someone who supports a surgery on males that would lower thier risk of a minor infection--should also support a sugery on females that lowered a major cancer by 50%, shouldn't they?
Dude, YOU ARE EQUATING THE TWO. I don't see how you don't see that.
and circumcision isn't a radical surgery? The fact that parents have a "choice" to cut off a normal functioning part of thier child's body is radical enough.
In Australia it's illegal to dock a dogs tail or crop its ears
In America it's still legal to cut off part of a child's penis
No, not at all--because you're talking about two completely different things: the removal of a small piece of skin versus the complete removal of an entire organ.
You said you're not making an equivalency, and then proceeded to make an equivalency. You are, in fact, trying to put circumcision on the same level as lopping off a breast on the grounds of disease reduction. It's a reductio ad absurdum made with a straight face. By that logic, shouldn't you be removing one of your lungs so as to avoid lung cancer?
then maybe you can ask her why she wouldn't be willing to go through an unnecessary surgery but supports forcing it upon others?
by that logic? you mean the same logic of lowered % of UTI and HIV that she uses uses to support circumcision?
If you're gonna play it "safe" and cut part of your sons dicks off to lower his chance of an infection then why not...
have our teeth pulled to lower our chances of cavities by a few % points?
let's all have our fingers removed to lower the risk of paper cuts?
i'll stop beating around the bush and put it into plain english: circumcision is either for the lazy, un-informed, or the plain stupid. Be a parent and teach your son how to clean himself instead of cutting part of his dick off.
I think MFR put it best:
In cases where men refuse to wear condoms (largely in Africa and India), circumcision is a great solution to reducing the incidence of HIV. Of course the medical arguments are weaker in the US, but I would liken circumcision to an outpatient procedure like having a mole cut off, certainly not an invasive "surgery" as you seem to imply.
What is ridiculous?
What is willfully ignorant? No, specious again, damn...
What is comedy?
Thats todays daily double!
Also,
ps. It seems like a lot of cut dudes are going au natural for their kiddos. Did you dudes miss your foreskin? Do you wish your parents' kept it on? Just wondering.
pps. Penises are weird.
bleh
I can't miss what I never knew I had. It's one of those things where you can't really even imagine what it'd be like to have it back...like someone colorblind trying to conceive of full spectrum color, you know?
But yeah, if I had a son, I wouldn't have undergone the procedure. No offense to Cosel but I don't find that the health benefits are enough to justify the procedure.
None taken.
I don't have a foreskin, so I'm not adamant about it either way. The only reason I responded to this thread in the first place is because I object to the suggestion that there are no sound medical arguments to support the position. To me, the arguments are sound; I don't think they're the sole reason people should allow the procedure, but I certainly don't think it weakens the argument, either.