Why do people get their kids circumcised if not for religious reasons?

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="nedim100"]

women prefer circumsized mostly for looks.

Allicrombie

Please tell me that you aren't this daft?coolbeans90

It's not irrelevant at all.

I never argued that in lack of proper hygiene and sanitary conditions and other measures such a condom, circumcision isnt beneficial.

That goes back to my precise wording: "necessarily". And I am correct. Uncircumcised does not necessarily equate to being at a considerably higher risk of getting STDs.

The example of Africa doesnt somehow negate my statement.

Teenaged

Yes, it is irrelevant. You can't ignore studies simply because they validate health reasons for circumcision. Africans are *shock*, human beings too! What works on them will work on people in the US.

Of course its not going to be a 100% fail safe from STD/HIV infection, that's stupid and not what I'm saying. It is however a great way of cutting transmission rates and it shouldn't be ignored, especially considering the AIDS epidemic in certain parts of the world. Hygene has nothing to do with that.

[QUOTE="Allicrombie"][QUOTE="xaos"] they aren't there for looking :xDarthkaiser

[QUOTE="MissLibrarian"]

I much prefer men who are uncircumcised.

Feels much better during intercourse for one thing.

Saturos3091

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Fact: Cleansing one's self is the leading cause of sin in our modern society.

coolbeans90

But cleanliness is godliness.

Did Jesus say that?

It's a saying, dunno from where. Just thought it was kinda funny, cleanliness is godliness, cleaning oneself is, well...

What works on them will work on people in the US.HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]Please tell me that you aren't this daft?foxhound_fox

You do realize that the implications of your statements are that the health outcomes of the two are the same, correct?

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]

[QUOTE="MissLibrarian"] Don't be bitter just because they took yours from you :roll:chilly-chill

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]There's a reason why circumcision is advocated to stop HIV tranmission rates in sub-saharan Africa, it ****ing works. I'm not advocating it as a form of safe-sex.foxhound_fox

Of course there are medical reasons for it, I just ****ing listed them. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true no matter how many times you say it. Think of it this way, what if there was a vaccine that effectively cut HIV/STD tranmission mission rates by over 40%? It would be hailed as a miracle.

Unless you like having your dick look like an elephant trunk or an ant eaters nose than get circumcised.chilly-chill

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

But cleanliness is godliness.

theone86

Did Jesus say that?

It's a saying, dunno from where. Just thought it was kinda funny, cleanliness is godliness, cleaning oneself is, well...

I wasn't trying to be SRS. :(

Cleanliness and everything else people said here. I prefer circumcised men :D

Well, I'm thinking about doing it since I can't seem to pull my foreskin back. Ugh.

On sexual performance

The American Academy of Pediatrics points to a survey (self-report) finding circumcised adult men had less sexual dysfunction and more varied sexual practices, but also noted anecdotal reports that penile sensation and sexual satisfaction are decreased for circumcised males.[27] A 2002 review by Boyle et al. stated that "the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings—many of which are lost to circumcision, with an inevitable reduction in sexual sensation experienced by circumcised males." They concluded, "intercourse is less satisfying for both partners when the man is circumcised"

On HIV/AIDS

A meta-analysis of the African randomised controlled trials found that the risk in circumcised males was 0.44 times that in uncircumcised males, and that 72 circumcisions would need to be performed to prevent one HIV infection. The authors also stated that using circumcision as a means to reduce HIV infection would, on a national level, require consistently safe sexual practices to maintain the protective benefit.

Circumcision has been judged to be a cost-effective method to reduce the spread of HIV in a population, though not necessarily more cost-effective than condoms. Some have challenged the validity of the African randomized controlled trials, prompting a number of researchers to question the effectiveness of circumcision as an HIV prevention strategy.

In addition to the studies which provided information about female-to-male transmission, some studies have addressed other transmission routes. A randomised controlled trial in Uganda found that male circumcision did not reduce male to female transmission of HIV. The authors could not rule out the possibility of higher risk of transmission from men who did not wait for the wound to fully heal before engaging in intercourse. A meta-analysis of data from fifteen observational studies of men who have sex with men found "insufficient evidence that male circumcision protects against HIV infection or other STDs.

On other STDs

A large randomized prospective trial in Uganda found a reduction in HSV-2 infection, but not syphilis infection, in the circumcision arm of the study.[144] In contrast, some studies have failed to find a prophylactic benefit to circumcision. A prospective trial in India found that circumcision offered no protective benefit against herpes simplex virus type 2, syphilis, or gonorrhea.[145] A clinical study of 5,925 women from Uganda, Zimbabwe and Thailand found that the circumcision status of their partner did not significantly affect the incidence of Chlamydia, gonorrhea or trichomoniasis.

On Hygiene

TheAmerican Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated: "Circumcision has been suggested as an effective method of maintaining penile hygiene since the time of the Egyptian dynasties, but there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene."

You do realize that the implications of your statements are that the health outcomes of the two are the same, correct?coolbeans90

Cleanliness and everything else people said here. I prefer circumcised men :D

MrsSolidSnake

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

It's not irrelevant at all.

I never argued that in lack of proper hygiene and sanitary conditions and other measures such a condom, circumcision isnt beneficial.

That goes back to my precise wording: "necessarily". And I am correct. Uncircumcised does not necessarily equate to being at a considerably higher risk of getting STDs.

The example of Africa doesnt somehow negate my statement.

HoolaHoopMan

Yes, it is irrelevant. You can't ignore studies simply because they validate health reasons for circumcision. Africans are *shock*, human beings too! What works on them will work on people in the US.

Of course its not going to be a 100% fail safe from STD/HIV infection, that's stupid and not what I'm saying. It is however a great way of cutting transmission rates and it shouldn't be ignored, especially considering the AIDS epidemic in certain parts of the world. Hygene has nothing to do with that.

Just like you might feel I'm ignoring the case of people in Africa, you are also ignoring the situation in first world countries. Why should the case of Africa only be indicative of circumcision? Shouldnt the case of first world countries also be taken into consideration?

The benefit of circumcision exists in contrast with its alternative: no circumcision.

But no circumcicion doesnt have the same results in all parts of the world. In first world countries it's pretty much as safe as getting a circumcision. In third world countries it isnt.

Therefore, circumcision in third world countries is beneficial, while in first world countries it doesnt have any noteable benefit.

And that's exactly why I am correct when I add that "necessarily". My statement is correct and I wasnt ignoring people in Africa like you implied.

Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true no matter how many times you say it.HoolaHoopMan

Why are you guys so defensive about your dicks?VanHelsingBoA64

[QUOTE="chilly-chill"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] Your garish labia compensate for my lack of foreskin... it's all good.

MissLibrarian

I don't see what the problem was here.foxhound_fox

The problem is that different outcomes affect the justifiability of the practice; bearing in mind that this means your statement necessitates equal outcomes to be equally justifiable, sufficiently substantiate it with empirical evidence.

Cleanliness and everything else people said here. I prefer circumcised men :D

Wow... this is moronic. Across the board HPV rates in men who are circumcised are slightly lower than those who are not. Likewise, there is SOME evidence to suggest that HIV rates are lower in similar populations, see the relatively recent study with Ronald Gray as lead author. It's not a huge difference, but it IS a difference... whether or not it's siginificant enough to do it is a personal choice. That the difference exists however, in conjunction with the reality that ALL sex is not safe, condoms DO fail, etc... is simply wrong. Frame_Dragger

Not studies from Africa, as if those studies are indicative of the issue as a whole.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]There's a reason why circumcision is advocated to stop HIV tranmission rates in sub-saharan Africa, it ****ing works. I'm not advocating it as a form of safe-sex.HoolaHoopMan

Of course there are medical reasons for it, I just ****ing listed them. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true no matter how many times you say it. Think of it this way, what if there was a vaccine that effectively cut HIV/STD tranmission mission rates by over 40%? It would be hailed as a miracle.

Ugh, you're arguing correlation /argument. Is this really so hard to understand? HIV rates are higher in uncircumcised men in Africa, they're also higher among black men in America, so does being black CAUSE higher HIV risks? Of course not. Can you really prove that there's causation and that this isn't just some statistical quirk? Nothing you've posted so far has made me think so.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]I don't see what the problem was here.coolbeans90

The problem is that different outcomes affect the justifiability of the practice; bearing in mind that this means your statement necessitates equal outcomes to be equally justifiable, sufficiently substantiate it with empirical evidence.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true no matter how many times you say it.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="chilly-chill"]Unless you like having your dick look like an elephant trunk or an ant eaters nose than get circumcised.foxhound_fox

You think that once someone has you liquored up enough to see them, that they'll insult them and walk away? :lol:Frame_Dragger

No. But they didn't have to compliment them either :\ That was their choice. AND I've been told as much on more than one occasion and by different people.
*prepares to enter the Annual PA Perfect Pusѕy Pageant*

Also lol liquored up.

Wow... this is moronic. Across the board HPV rates in men who are circumcised are slightly lower than those who are not. Likewise, there is SOME evidence to suggest that HIV rates are lower in similar populations, see the relatively recent study with Ronald Gray as lead author. It's not a huge difference, but it IS a difference... whether or not it's siginificant enough to do it is a personal choice. That the difference exists however, in conjunction with the reality that ALL sex is not safe, condoms DO fail, etc... is simply wrong. Frame_Dragger

This thread is actually kind of funny.

Way to stay classy. Ignore medical studies all you'd like, hell even ignore it from the federal agency designed to fight the spread of DISEASE. What the **** would they know right? I'm done here. HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]Way to stay classy. Ignore medical studies all you'd like, hell even ignore it from the federal agency designed to fight the spread of DISEASE. What the **** would they know right? I'm done here. foxhound_fox

Is that really the middle way, fox?

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]You think that once someone has you liquored up enough to see them, that they'll insult them and walk away? :lol:MissLibrarian

No. But they didn't have to compliment them either :\ That was their choice. AND I've been told as much on more than one occasion and by different people.
*prepares to enter the Annual PA Perfect Pusѕy Pageant*

Also lol liquored up.

@Teenaged: There's a lack of stats, which is the problem, but if the posited physiological chance and alteration of the microbial stock at the head of the penis are universal, then the benefits are as well. That some people won't be protected by this because of overwhelming factors wouldn't change that.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]Way to stay classy. Ignore medical studies all you'd like, hell even ignore it from the federal agency designed to fight the spread of DISEASE. What the **** would they know right? I'm done here. theone86

Is that really the middle way, fox?

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]Way to stay classy. Ignore medical studies all you'd like, hell even ignore it from the federal agency designed to fight the spread of DISEASE. What the **** would they know right? I'm done here. foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]Way to stay classy. Ignore medical studies all you'd like, hell even ignore it from the federal agency designed to fight the spread of DISEASE. What the **** would they know right? I'm done here. chilly-chill

That pic doesn't make sense.

ITT: An abhorrent disregard for quantitative reasoning and an apparent lack of the capacity to separate biases whilst objectively analyzing the issues.

Except Frame_Dragger.

@Teenaged: There's a lack of stats, which is the problem, but if the posited physiological chance and alteration of the microbial stock at the head of the penis are universal, then the benefits are as well. That some people won't be protected by this because of overwhelming factors wouldn't change that.

Frame_Dragger

What I was think of was that if they are accumulative, ie their results are the average of all the studies made, then for a citizen of a first world country that result isnt 100% informative.

Of course if someone is looking to have a discussion about circumcision in general, then all studies matter equally. It's just that in this thread, since most of us live in first world countries (shut up cybr, Greece is still a first world country >__>), and the discussion isnt purely theoretical I thought it'd be best to focus on that: the benefits of circumcision in first world societies.

ITT: An abhorrent disregard for quantitative reasoning and an apparent lack of the capacity to separate biases whilst objectively analyzing the issues.

Except Frame_Dragger.

coolbeans90

ITT: An abhorrent disregard for quantitative reasoning and an apparent lack of the capacity to separate biases whilst objectively analyzing the issues.

Except Frame_Dragger.

coolbeans90

Same thing hoolahoopman did.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]

@Teenaged: There's a lack of stats, which is the problem, but if the posited physiological chance and alteration of the microbial stock at the head of the penis are universal, then the benefits are as well. That some people won't be protected by this because of overwhelming factors wouldn't change that.

What I was think of was that if they are accumulative, ie their results are the average of all the studies made, then for a citizen of a first world country that result isnt 100% informative.

Of course if someone is looking to have a discussion about circumcision in general, then all studies matter equally. It's just that in this thread, since most of us live in first world countries (shut up cybr, Greece is still a first world country >__>), and the discussion isnt purely theoretical I thought it'd be best to focus on that: the benefits of circumcision in first world societies.

ITT: An abhorrent disregard for quantitative reasoning and an apparent lack of the capacity to separate biases whilst objectively analyzing the issues.

Except Frame_Dragger.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

ITT: An abhorrent disregard for quantitative reasoning and an apparent lack of the capacity to separate biases whilst objectively analyzing the issues.

Except Frame_Dragger.

xaos

Some nonsense about health. If you have good hygiene like you should, then your dick will be clean regardless.