Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

This appears to be drifting towards flamey.

Averted. Carry on citizens.

[Sheb]

Nice Trolling MSH. I'd like your sources on the marginality of circumcision as a disease prevention thing. To quote the OP:

Tobian, from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, said the findings are missing important context.

"The medical evidence and the benefits of male circumcision are abundantly clear," Tobian told Reuters Health.

"If there was a vaccine out there that reduces the risk of HIV by 60 percent, herpes by 30 percent and the penile cancer causing HPV by 35 percent, the medical community would rally behind it," said Tobian.

More seriously, breast cancer ain't as common, nor as untreatable as AIDS (I was talking in the context of high-AIDS countries like Malawi), and loosing your breast is much more traumatic than loosing your foreskin.

Also, a german judge ruled last year that circumsision is bodily harm and should not be done except for medical reasons. Will be interesting to see where this is headed.

[Virex]

Can I ask an honest question?

Why is this thread a thing? What is gained out of saying "Oh yeah, your parents' decision was a bad one"? I for one am perfectly fine with my parents' choice. At best this thread is a circlejerk saying that "I hate my parents for doing that" and at worst it's a flamewar waiting to happen.

Because the white menz need to earn their oppression card.

[Loud Whispers]

Well it took one post before we got back to the flamewar. That's a start.

[Virex]

Well it took one post before we got back to the flamewar. That's a start.

The whole subject only serves as flamebait for MRA types. Did you really expect anything else?

[DJ]

IMO it's just plain wrong to make irreversible changes to your child's body for no good reason. I'd say that circumcision is about as bad as tattooing babies. Now, if that child wants to get circumcised when he's old enough to make an informed decision, that's his business. But I seriously doubt there'd be many who opt in.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Nice Trolling MSH.

I'm not trolling.

I'd like your sources on the marginality of circumcision as a disease prevention thing.

Even some of the studies in support question it.

The inferences drawn from the only completed randomised controlled trial (RCT) of circumcision could be weak because the trial stopped early.2 In a systematic review of RCTs stopped early for benefit,3 such RCTs were found to overestimate treatment effects. When trials with events fewer than the median number (n=66) were compared with those with event numbers above the median, the odds ratio for a magnitude of effect greater than the median was 28 (95% CI 11–73). The circumcision trial recorded 69 events, and is therefore at risk of serious effect overestimation.

The WHO, who push the study that claims 60% reduction even though they did not complete the study and thus invalidated it, admit as much:

Male circumcision should always be considered as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention package, which includes the provision of HIV testing and counselling services; treatment for sexually transmitted infections; the promotion of safer sex practices; and the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use.

Counselling of men and their sexual partners is necessary to prevent them from developing a false sense of security and engaging in high-risk behaviours that could undermine the partial protection provided by male circumcision. Furthermore, male circumcision service provision was seen as a major opportunity to address the frequently neglected sexual health needs of men.

“Being able to recommend an additional HIV prevention method is a significant step towards getting ahead of this epidemic,” said Catherine Hankins, Associate Director, Department of Policy, Evidence and Partnerships at UNAIDS. “However, we must be clear: male circumcision does not provide complete protection against HIV. Men and women who consider male circumcision as an HIV preventive method must continue to use other forms of protection such as male and female condoms, delaying sexual debut and reducing the number of sexual partners.”

Like I said, marginal at best. Without other forms of protection you are still likely to catch HIV.

Here's an additional analysis questioning the whole thing, if you doubt my doubts.

More seriously, breast cancer ain't as common, nor as untreatable as AIDS (I was talking in the context of high-AIDS countries like Malawi), and loosing your breast is much more traumatic than loosing your foreskin.

What metric of traumatic are you using for this? There have been and still are deaths and (additional) disfiguration as a result of circumcision, so it is hardly a traumaless procedure.

If treating HIV/AIDS is your goal, you should focus upon investment of less expensive Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Treatment, as it takes the HIV down to a level that is not dangerous and makes further transmission nearly impossible. That is the reason HIV/AIDS sufferers in the developed world can live long, normal lives, and circumcising every male on Earth won't hold a candle to it in preventative ability.

Because the white menz need to earn their oppression card.

The whole subject only serves as flamebait for MRA types. Did you really expect anything else?

Quit trolling, Virex. This is a serious discussion and furthermore, nobody here has even claimed to be aligned with the MRA community.

[Cheeetar]

Well it took one post before we got back to the flamewar. That's a start.

The whole subject only serves as flamebait for MRA types. Did you really expect anything else?

Arguing that a topic is destined to derail into flaming is one of the most effective ways I've seen people derail topics into flaming.

[Bauglir]

IMO it's just plain wrong to make irreversible changes to your child's body for no good reason. I'd say that circumcision is about as bad as tattooing babies. Now, if that child wants to get circumcised when he's old enough to make an informed decision, that's his business. But I seriously doubt there'd be many who opt in.

The problem is, a parent makes decisions every day that make irreversible changes to their child's life. As a parent, you have to decide what the kid eats, which has a far greater impact on the child's immediate health, as well as on their long-term development (ranging from every category from brain development to whatever impact success in school will have later on). Basically, whatever the merits of the issue, an argument from the idea that parents don't have the authority to make decisions on behalf of their children is wrong, unless you can prove that that decision is inherently a bad one. That is to say, it adds nothing to the discussion - you have to prove it's wrong first.

EDIT: Oh, let's go for braces. It's an irreversible, (usually) cosmetic decision that parents often make on their children's behalf, that's put into place through a minor (although not usually surgical) medical procedure.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The problem is, a parent makes decisions every day that make irreversible changes to their child's life. As a parent, you have to decide what the kid eats, which has a far greater impact on the child's immediate health, as well as on their long-term development (ranging from every category from brain development to whatever impact success in school will have later on). Basically, whatever the merits of the issue, an argument from the idea that parents don't have the authority to make decisions on behalf of their children is wrong, unless you can prove that that decision is inherently a bad one. That is to say, it adds nothing to the discussion - you have to prove it's wrong first.

A parent can decide what their child eats, but that isn't an unlimited license. If you feed your child rotten food they'll be taken into state custody. What a parent is allowed to do to a child relies upon the necessity of the situation. Good caretakers can not be guaranteed, so the limits of parenting are defined by the potential good that can be gained from their agency. Circumcision does not fit this definition.

EDIT: Oh, let's go for braces. It's an irreversible, (usually) cosmetic decision that parents often make on their children's behalf, that's put into place through a minor (although not usually surgical) medical procedure.

You still have teeth after having braces, and most of the time when children get them they are old enough to at least partially understand and agree to the procedure. It is also not insignificant that it is not surgical. People don't occasionally die from getting braces.

[Loud Whispers]

Most effects of nutrition are also reversible and changeable.

[toomanysecrets]

If they had surveyed 1,300 people who had circumcisions as adults then you would likely have a conclusive study.  But they didn't.  I would argue that the differences in these "scores" that they reported can very easily be explained by a total lack of a baseline for a comparison.  The only hard data they were willing to put forth in the article is the 3.31 vs 3.72 on the "sensitivity" score!  What a joke.

I for one am very, very grateful that my parents didn't wait in order to let me decide!! Parents make a tremendous number of decisions that affect their kids before the kid is able to decide for themselves.  This is not tyranny, it's parenting.  I'm happy with my parents' decision, always have been, I've never had any complaints from my partners and have never, ever, had any pain or numbness.

[Loud Whispers]

What a joke.

"The researchers also found circumcised men were more likely to report more pain and numbness during arousal than uncircumcised men, which Hoebeke said is likely due to scar tissue."

The lack of more data as you said though is annoying.

[toomanysecrets]

hard data

[Leafsnail]

What exactly would qualify as hard data if not people's experiences?  There isn't actually an objective way to measure penis goodness.