It would make more sense in Africa, for example, as it has been shown to reduce the transmission of HIV(controversial of course). However, in NA choice is the only reason
Basically circumcision can help prevent infection however the actual rate of infection in infants is very low regardless. There can be complications with the procedure, but this is a very low percentage as well.
The STD argument is ridiculous, circumcision may have a small impact on transmission but not enough to make it relevant, wear a condom ffs.
Either way the benefits/risks are in pretty low percentages so it's really a matter of choice.
I don't know how you can say the STD argument is ridiculous. It's been shown to dramatically reduce the rate of infection of HIV, warts, and herpes.
Sure it's easy to say "Wear a condom". However, I know lots of people who have had sex at least once without a condom, when they were most certainly in a situation where they should have been. I also know a lot of people who've contracted STDs. Contracting STDs remains a very common and serious issue, I don't know what's so ridiculous about that.
So, what you guys are saying is that you've been told by women that they prefer men who are the same way you are? Shocking. I bet they also say that you're the perfect size too.
I believe that the percentage of people who require having their appendix removed at some point in their lives is significantly higher than the percentage of men who will ever require a medically necessary adult circumcision, but we don't run around removing the appendix of every child who's born. Also, an circumcised man who wishes to get cut as an adult can make that choice for himself, the opposite is not possible.
But, to get back to the original question, I think the blame has to fall squarely on the hospital/doctor who performed the procedure. There is enough medical evidence that the procedure is completely unnecessary in the modern developed world, that regardless of the parents' wishes, they should refuse. They wouldn't perform any other medically unnecessary procedure on a child just because the parents requested it, and if they did, they'd be to blame if something went wrong (they'd also be to blame if something went wrong on a procedure that was necessary).
Doctors aren't to blame on a procedure unless they do something negligent. Having something go wrong, isn't enough.
I don't know how you can say the STD argument is ridiculous. It's been shown to dramatically reduce the rate of infection of HIV, warts, and herpes.
From the same CPS site.
"There is evidence that circumcision results in a reduction in the incidence of penile cancer and of HIV transmission. However, there is inadequate information to recommend circumcision as a public health measure to prevent these diseases."
There is a whole section that is to long to post that states some studies show a correlation and some do not. There is also some concern upon review that the studies that did show a correlation may have overestimated the correlation.
I'm not saying that there isn't a correlation but it's not a great argument when there are alternative options available that will increase protection from STD's very near to 100%.
I'm not arguing against circumcision either, it's a choice, but it should be an informed one.
"There is evidence that circumcision results in a reduction in the incidence of penile cancer and of HIV transmission. However, there is inadequate information to recommend circumcision as a public health measure to prevent these diseases."
There is a whole section that is to long to post that states some studies show a correlation and some do not. There is also some concern upon review that the studies that did show a correlation may have overestimated the correlation.
I'm not saying that there isn't a correlation but it's not a great argument when there are alternative options available that will increase protection from STD's very near to 100%.
I'm not arguing against circumcision either, it's a choice, but it should be an informed one.
I agree with you 100%. It should be a choice. Circumcision is surgery and carries risks.
Some of the studies I've read show some pretty overwhelming evidence that circumcision does help reduce STD/STI infection, particularly HIV. In Canada the incidence of HIV is relatively low, epsecially among heterosexual non-drug users. So you could argue that the benefits are relatively small. For me, I'm glad I had it done, even if I am very unlikely to be exposed to HIV.
For the record, just asked my GF sitting next to me, and she said she won't blow uncut guys. Says it sometimes it smells funny, and she had a bad experience with some dick cheese once.
And she is a bit slutty. So there you go.
so....
/thread, debate over.
I bet it must feel really good and reassuring that she won't blow half the population.
The Following User Says Thank You to KTown For This Useful Post:
I suspect all the real or perceived negtatives of having foreskin can basically all be alleviated simply by properly washing your dick. no?
I suppose I can see why several millenia ago certain religions thought the foreskin should be lopped off, people were filthy!
Liken it to pork, yeah 2000 years ago pigs were friggen disgusting cannibalistc animals and therefore religions like Islam and Judaism did not consume them (same religions which circumcise) but today does should the same thing apply? There's reason why the head of the penis is naturally protected.
I suspect all the real or perceived negtatives of having foreskin can basically all be alleviated simply by properly washing your dick. no?
I suppose I can see why several millenia ago certain religions thought the foreskin should be lopped off, people were filthy!
Liken it to pork, yeah 2000 years ago pigs were friggen disgusting cannibalistc animals and therefore religions like Islam and Judaism did not consume them (same religions which circumcise) but today does should the same thing apply? There's reason why the head of the penis is naturally protected.
By that same logic you could make the argument that we now have clothes and underwear so the "reason why the head of the penis is naturally protected" is no longer a reason.
You may have answered your own question, A doc buddy told me he thinks it's the natural evolution of humans that organs like the appendix and gall bladder are failing and need removal. He said allready there are few case of babys be born without an appendix and he thinks in a few thousand years all kids will be born without the useless organs.
I'll have to ask him about the forskin...problem is,he was born and raised a Jew
Either way I don't care, obviously they just want the goods, which is fine by me.
There's a reason why you need to be circumcised to make it in the porn industry! People don't want to see that thing spring out like a trap door spider at them.
Elaine knows what's up.
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
Last edited by HPLovecraft; 11-20-2011 at 05:54 PM.
I would guess the opposite. The hood hides everything until an erection. Unhooded leaves the nerves exposed, so you get more stimulation before erection.
In reality, there is no difference. At least that's what the studies say...well the ones on wikipedia.
I would guess the opposite. The hood hides everything until an erection. Unhooded leaves the nerves exposed, so you get more stimulation before erection.
Just kidding, in reality, there is no difference. At least that's what the studies say...well the ones on wikipedia.
