Circumcision, why is this a thing...

[wretched34]

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 we should be lighting people on fire.

And yes, I am completely able to see the differences, it was simply an exaggerated comparison to say measuring trauma by causing trauma is weird.

What I'm really questioning is what are they taking a "deeper" look into? All the MRI is concluding is that yes, the child is in fact reacting to physical stimuli.
Did we need an MRI to prove that, No.

There is literally no discerning difference between a cut man, and uncut man due to the process of circumcision, aside from the obvious aesthetic, and number of spontaneous blow jobs one will receive in their life as pointed out by firefly.
You'll have people that have no perspective on the matter, some that go extreme in one direction or the other, and others that fall somewhere in between.

To be quite honest, I have no perspective on the matter, I'm cut, my sons cut, I don't know why, and I don't care. Maybe that makes me a monster, but so far, my son has never looked at his dick and threatened to murder me, so only time will tell.
However I do enjoy stirring the pot and seeing fact and logic vs bias.
It's been fun so far.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cain

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 think the study as it stands is flawed as a means to draw conclusions about infant trauma as a result of circumcision. I am not necessarily challenging its validity as I am challenging the way it has been promoted in this thread as proof positive of a highly conjectural claim.

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.

I am also interested in acquiring more information, and if this study leads to that then I am all for it. But as of now I think a responsible position to hold on this issue is that it is far from settled, and I would prefer to continue to wait before drawing a definitive conclusion about the benefits vs. detriments of infant circumcision.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by wretched34

To be quite honest, I have no perspective on the matter, I'm cut, my sons cut, I don't know why, and I don't care. Maybe that makes me a monster, but so far, my son has never looked at his dick and threatened to murder me, so only time will tell.
However I do enjoy stirring the pot and seeing fact and logic vs bias.
It's been fun so far.

I'm not so certain you are on the side you think you are. Carry on then!

[nik-]

I like being natural because I can use it as a little pocket to hide drugs in.

Just don't use it to hide tabs of acid.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Cain

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.

Exactly, but from the sounds of it they didn't do that so I find any results they come up with highly suspect. Because Grimble posted this, his statement is highly misleading and I think it's reasonable to posit out the study is flawed.

Originally Posted by Grimbl420

... Recent studies suggest it is in fact very traumatizing to baby boys and can lead to lasting changes in the brain. ...

This is how fake news is spread. The anti-vax movement was born of it. Idon't think it is unreasonable to nip it in the bud here, before someone thinks "huh, I remember reading about a study that says circumcision can have long lasting effects on the brain..." and maybe spreading it in conversation.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think the study as it stands is flawed as a means to draw conclusions about infant trauma as a result of circumcision. I am not necessarily challenging its validity as I am challenging the way it has been promoted in this thread as proof positive of a highly conjectural claim.


I am also interested in acquiring more information, and if this study leads to that then I am all for it. But as of now I think a responsible position to hold on this issue is that it is far from settled, and I would prefer to continue to wait before drawing a definitive conclusion about the benefits vs. detriments of infant circumcision.

I can agree with that. Mostly I was just nitpicking on the alarm of the trauma inducing mri compared with the non alarm of the trauma induced by the circumcision itself. Seemed a bit nonsensical to be concerned about one but not the other.

Hopefully there are some better studies coming!

[wretched34]

Originally Posted by Cain

I'm not so certain you are on the side you think you are. Carry on then!

I feel certain to which side I support, and it's not the one stoking the fire with unproven studies and hate to prove their bias.

[Grimbl420]

Men have the right to genital integrity.
Men have the right to choose.

This is as much if not more about mens right to choose what happens to our bodies. if you feel that strongly in favour of circumcision than surly you don't have a problem leaving that choice up to the person that's actually being cut.

if you can't get behind that. then you're not even worth talking to about this.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Grimbl420

Men have the right to genital integrity.

This is literally the best post in the history of CalgaryPuck.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by Grimbl420

Men have the right to genital integrity.
Men have the right to choose.

This is as much if not more about mens right to choose what happens to our bodies. if you feel that strongly in favour of circumcision than surly you don't have a problem leaving that choice up to the person that's actually being cut.

if you can't get behind that. then you're not even worth talking to about this.

Do babies have the right to choose? Isn't that right given up to the parent or guardian?

[Grimbl420]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

Do babies have the right to choose? Isn't that right given up to the parent or guardian?

lol, nice strawman.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

Do babies have the right to choose? Isn't that right given up to the parent or guardian?

Not in all things, no. Kind of the crux of the argument really. One side believes status quo is fine, and one believes that it should be a choice delayed and then deferred to the baby when they are old enough to make that choice for themselves.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Grimbl420

if you feel that strongly in favour of circumcision than surly you don't have a problem leaving that choice up to the person that's actually being cut.

The only one surly here is you.

[TheGrimm]

We chose not to circumcise our son when he was born a couple of years back. Primarily because when I asked a doctor and two nurses, none provided any medical reason to do so. I figure worst case scenario he can get it done later, if it's that important to him.

Genital integrity for all!

[WhiteTiger]

Dang...got back from work today to find that this topic has exploded all over the place.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Dang...got back from work today to find that this topic has exploded all over the place.

I think the thread has climaxed and is now becoming a soft topic.

[Red Slinger]

I learned a few things from this thread but I'm having trouble reconciling them:

1) My parents are evil.
2) I am not evil.
3) I have no genital integrity.
4) I am more likely to get a spontaneous blowjob.
5) I am less likely to get HIV.

Who knew I was so complicated? Thanks CP, you have delivered yet again!

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

I learned a few things from this thread but I'm having trouble reconciling them:

1) My parents are evil.
2) I am not evil.
3) I have no genital integrity.
4) I am more likely to get a spontaneous blowjob.
5) I am less likely to get HIV.

Who knew I was so complicated? Thanks CP, you have delivered yet again!

I still refuse to believe a “spontaneous blowjob” is a real thing.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

I still refuse to believe a “spontaneous blowjob” is a real thing.

Oh no, it's real. Real like Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, Unicorns and God. Many have claimed to have experienced it but there is no scientific evidence.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Thor

That is patently false when you remove all those nerve endings, and you remove the protection provided by the foreskin you get the same effect as with your hands, calluses (thickening of the head of the penis).

What we don't know is how much its reduced by, because its hard to study and very few have had any interest in doing so. Denmark is, however, starting a landmark study which will include this question, as well as a possible link to erectile dysfunction with CC men, and we recently even had a study that suggests CC increases the risk of SIDS for boys.

Further reading on CC and sex.

https://www.academia.edu/9404847/Sex_and_circumcision

This is not a scientific study. This is a review of secondary literature.

Firstly, nerve endings are not all equal. The nerve endings in the foreskin are not exposed. They are nerves that run through the length of the penis shaft and get stimulated by horizontal pressure on the shaft. Removing the "endings" makes no difference to the part of the nerve that remains.

Secondly, the scientific literature says that circumcision either has no effect on sexual satisfaction or increases it:

Actual scientific studies:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28364982

On average, 97% of circumcised men were satisfied with sexual intercourse and 92% rated sex as more enjoyable or no different after circumcision compared with before circumcision.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28258953

RESULTS:
Of 454 circumcised men, 362 (80%) returned for a follow-up visit 6 to 24 months after VMMC. Almost all (98%) were satisfied with the outcome of their VMMC; most (95%) reported that their female partners were satisfied with their circumcision. Two thirds (67%) reported enjoying sex more after VMMC and most were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied (94%) with sexual intercourse after VMMC. Sexual function improved and reported sex-induced coital injuries decreased significantly in most men after VMMC. There was an increase in the proportion of men who reported at least two sexual partners after VMMC compared with baseline. In multivariate analysis, having sex with a woman they met the same day (adjusted relative risk = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.2-
2.4) and having at least two sexual partners at baseline (adjusted relative risk = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.3-0.8) were associated with the outcome of any increase in the number of partners after VMMC.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS:
VMMC can be offered to Dominican men for HIV prevention without adversely affecting sexual pleasure or function. The procedure substantially reduces coital trauma.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23937309

CONCLUSION:
The highest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26681707

CONCLUSION:
Both men and their partners can generally expect equal or improved sexual satisfaction and penile hygiene following VMMC. Future studies should consider innovative strategies to assist men in their efforts to abstain from sexual activities prior to complete healing.

Feel free to look up many more studies. I'm not cherry picking results:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...n+sex+pleasure

The overall conclusion is that circumcision has a positive affect on male sexual pleasure as the foreskin is more prone to trauma during sex.