Circumcision, why is this a thing... - Page 14 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

The Fonz · 08-09-2018, 01:45 PM

Just for the record, not all of us intact guys are completely unhinged on this subject.

Grimbl420 · 08-09-2018, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wormius

While I am stilling questioning the relevance of the assertion, I am curious how somebody can wash it without taking their pants off - or is that just on a technicality.

do you have a zipper on your pants?

Cain · 08-09-2018, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wretched34

I mean, you could ask?
Isn't that what they are trying to prove? That circumcision has a lasting effect on a person?
So how does an MRI proving they react to physical stimuli, and the brain changed due too a traumatic experience actually relate back to the circumcision itself 20 years later, when the adult male has no recollection of the actual "traumatic event".
If the whole point of the study is to prove an adverse effect to the procedure later in life, why not target all the angry men who feel they've been mutilated against their will to more substantially prove a point, rather than cause more trauma to an infant, with no way to prove adverse effects?

Seems to make sense to have a baseline to me, maybe they will go and revisit later in life and see if there is a difference. I'm not the one conducting the study here so I'm just spitballing, the same as you.

Again, it is a bit ironic you are worried about the "additional trauma" that adds a bit to what that baby is about to face already, for no real reason. If there was such evidence for the benefits wouldn't the rest of the world be onboard?

Galakanokis · 08-09-2018, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grimbl420

are you happy being a complete A******

Perfectly happy thanks. That wasn't a personal attack it might just be some helpful advice.

FireFly · 08-09-2018, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grimbl420

do you have a zipper on your pants?

Just so you are aware, women also have zippers and there's this fancy new invention called a "washcloth". I'm not saying we can wash our vaginas with our pants on, but I'm not saying we can't, either. I'm saying that if you want to have a quick sink wash of your vagina, it's possible.

Nyah · 08-09-2018, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grimbl420

I have an opinion, I'm not making personal attacks.

big difference.

Except for calling people who circumcise their boys evil?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grimbl420

If you choose to cut your son, you are evil.

wretched34 · 08-09-2018, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grimbl420

lol, giving Baby MRI = bad. Cutting part of Penis off = okay.

that's a real messed up view. the mental gymnastics you have to do to get to that conclusion is baffling to me.

So, your point of view then, is that causing more harm to study harm = good?
That baffles me, why would you want to cause more trauma to study trauma. That's like studying nerve damage in burn victims by lighting them on fire.

It was known long before this study that physical trauma causes brain reactions, so why is it necessary to perform a circumcision in an MRI to prove that? It is just weird how far some will go to prove a biased point of view.

Cecil Terwilliger · 08-09-2018, 01:52 PM

Well this discussion has come to a head. But no reason to be a dick about it. Whether you want to take a hard stance for or against, I don't think there's any reason to prematurely explode at someone for having a difference of opinion on the matter. I have no skin in this game though, as I don't have children .

Textcritic · 08-09-2018, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cain

Truthfully what is bizarre is to focus on the potential trauma caused by a study that can paint a clearer picture which is what you have been asking for time and time again.

If a study inflicts a small amount of trauma to potentially end a much larger and widespread trauma is that not a gain? Pretty weird thing to fixate on. Worry about the trauma of being strapped down for an mri but not the trauma caused by cutting off part of their genitalia. Especially given that most people here seem to think that since they are a baby they won't remember it and it is therefore a nonissue.

Do you have any other ideas on how they can try to quantify it?

Not really, no. And while in principle I can see the potential benefits of such a study, I am highly sceptical of its validity.

I continue to maintain that this is a difficult issue with no obvious solution until risk/benefit analyses are more conclusive. In my opinion, the MRI study does nothing to change that.

Grimbl420 · 08-09-2018, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galakanokis

Perfectly happy thanks. That wasn't a personal attack it might just be some helpful advice.

Except you came to this thread specifically to attack me personally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyah

Except for calling people who circumcise their boys evil?

I never personally called anyone evil. I called the procedure evil and I stand by that.

Cain · 08-09-2018, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wretched34

So, your point of view then, is that causing more harm to study harm = good?
That baffles me, why would you want to cause more trauma to study trauma. That's like studying nerve damage in burn victims by lighting them on fire.

It was known long before this study that physical trauma causes brain reactions, so why is it necessary to perform a circumcision in an MRI to prove that? It is just weird how far some will go to prove a biased point of view.

My goodness man. Nobody is lighting anyone on fire.

Studying a child who is about to have a circumcision as a choice of the parent is just a litttttttttttttle bit different than that. I hope you are able to see that. It is going to happen anyway, so why not take a deeper look to see if it should be happening at all. Mental gymnastics indeed.

undercoverbrother · 08-09-2018, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireFly

There are definitely fewer spontaneous bjs given to an uncut man.

appointment booked!

Cain · 08-09-2018, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Not really, no. And while in principle I can see the potential benefits of such a study, I am highly sceptical of its validity.

I continue to maintain that this is a difficult issue with no obvious solution until risk/benefit analyses are more conclusive. In my opinion, the MRI study does nothing to change that.

Why are you skeptical? Scientific reasons or personal leanings?

If you maintain that this is a difficult issue with no obvious solution, but then scoff at a study that might be trying to shed more light on the risk/benefit analysis I'm not sure where to go. Again, do you have any other ideas specifically?

I agree it is a contentious issue, and in those, I generally prefer more information...which presumably is what this study is aiming to provide.

Fuzz · 08-09-2018, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cain

My goodness man. Nobody is lighting anyone on fire.

Studying a child who is about to have a circumcision as a choice of the parent is just a litttttttttttttle bit different than that. I hope you are able to see that. It is going to happen anyway, so why not take a deeper look to see if it should be happening at all. Mental gymnastics indeed.

I think the point is that it's possible the study mistook the effects of a baby being strapped to a board vs circumcision. Which event caused the trauma? It's a pretty crap study and I would be hesitant to extrapolate anything from it.

Textcritic · 08-09-2018, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grimbl420

...I never personally called anyone evil. I called the procedure evil and I stand by that.

...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grimbl420

...If you choose to cut your son, you are evil...

FireFly · 08-09-2018, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grimbl420

I never personally called anyone evil. I called the procedure evil and I stand by that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grimbl420

If you choose to cut your son, you are evil.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grimbl420

strapping helpless babies down and removing part of their penis for cosmetic reasons while they scream and cry? you can call it whatever you want. I'll stick with evil.

Actually, you called everyone who had their son circumcised evil. And then you doubled down on it.

Cain · 08-09-2018, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think the point is that it's possible the study mistook the effects of a baby being strapped to a board vs circumcision. Which event caused the trauma? It's a pretty crap study and I would be hesitant to extrapolate anything from it.

Pretty simple to have an mri of a baby that is not undergoing a circumcision as well. I do admit to not having read the study but that does not seem like a substantial hurdle to me.

Grimbl420 · 08-09-2018, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Textcritic

...

well I did do it then, and I'll still stand by it.

Cecil Terwilliger · 08-09-2018, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

appointment booked!

It's not a spontaneous BJ if you had to book an appointment. Duh.

Sliver · 08-09-2018, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Not really, no. And while in principle I can see the potential benefits of such a study, I am highly sceptical of its validity.

Yeah, I can't see how that study would be accurate. It introduces a pretty significant variable that wouldn't be there during any other circumcision. Maybe they just take the baseline stress of the MRI and watch the stress spike as they start their cut? Hard to see how you'd get anything too meaningful out of it, but good to see they're trying to get some empirical data.