Study suggests circumcision increases risk of developing Autism

[BigNumbers]

Originally Posted by FireFly

And I also said I preferred uncut. You just jumped on me because I mentioned it's hard to find an uncut and clean man. Which has two mitigating factors... there aren't many uncut men my age and if you do find one who's uncut, they might not also be clean.

This is where you experience with a likely non-normalized sample size (under 35 dinks, say) is coloring your view.

Here are some actual numbers:

The Canadian Paediatric Society estimates of 48 percent for the prevalence of male circumcision in Canada in 1970.In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics reported that “in Canada, ~48% of males are circumcised”.

So If you are between 45 (1970 study) and 16 (1999 study) then the average has not changed in Canada - less than half of Canadian males are circumcised. So in a normal situation, if you slept with 100 guys, about would 50 would be cut and 50 uncut.

Now I am not disagreeing with you that of the X number of guys trouser snakes you've seen, that nearly all were cut - that is certainly possible. But for you to then make the wild extrapolations you've made, including the highlighted above, is what some members (lol) are taking issue with.

Also, your rather factual comment on pee drops and smelliness are very wierd... I have never heard that before, but then you take that an extrapolate it to "if you do find one who's uncut, they might not also be clean." Again, very odd, and not sure how you've proved that out. You're a chick, so respectfully, I don't think you understand the intricacies of a cut vs. uncut pork sword to make such baseless comments?

I guess what I am getting at is

1. Don't use your small personal sample size and extrapolate it into generalized comments as above, if better data is a click away.
2. I don't understand how you can be so sure of your view (smelly unclean uncut guys, etc) when you're a girl? I am not nearly as certain in my view of the cleanliness of a cooter based on the size of and/or protrusion and/or folds in the labia?

[Locke]

Dammit, first hockey and now penises. You just cant escape statistics.

[BigNumbers]

I think that's more about wangs than I ever expected to write... You can't get a numbers guy away from the numbers...even if it's dong-based.

It's my two loves - statistics and personal biases - combined with genital mutilation.

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by BigNumbers

Here are some actual numbers:

The Canadian Paediatric Society estimates of 48 percent for the prevalence of male circumcision in Canada in 1970.In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics reported that “in Canada, ~48% of males are circumcised”.

From wiki:

"...In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics reported that “in Canada, ~48% of males are circumcised”.[19] However, this figure was questioned because the only citation provided for it was an Australian paper dating from 1970.

...A survey of Canadian maternity practices conducted in 2006/2007 by the national public health agency found a newborn circumcision rate of 31.9%.[26] Rates varied markedly across the country, from close to zero in Newfoundland and Labrador to 44.3% in Alberta."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Locke

Dammit, first hockey and now penises. You just cant escape statistics.

#advancedshafts

[karl262]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

From wiki:

"...In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics reported that “in Canada, ~48% of males are circumcised”.[19] However, this figure was questioned because the only citation provided for it was an Australian paper dating from 1970.

...A survey of Canadian maternity practices conducted in 2006/2007 by the national public health agency found a newborn circumcision rate of 31.9%.[26] Rates varied markedly across the country, from close to zero in Newfoundland and Labrador to 44.3% in Alberta."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision

I wonder why it's so much higher in Alberta.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by karl262

I wonder why it's so much higher in Alberta.

Rednecks like turtlenecks.

Without fotze, someone has to make all the dick jokes?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by BigNumbers

I guess what I am getting at is

1. Don't use your small personal sample size and extrapolate it into generalized comments as above, if better data is a click away.
2. I don't understand how you can be so sure of your view (smelly unclean uncut guys, etc) when you're a girl? I am not nearly as certain in my view of the cleanliness of a cooter based on the size of and/or protrusion and/or folds in the labia?

Your 'better data' which has already been questioned doesn't speak very clearly to cleanliness, rather just rates of circumcision. In fact, if you look at what the wiki article says that automaton 3 posted,

"...A survey of Canadian maternity practices conducted in 2006/2007 by the national public health agency found a newborn circumcision rate of 31.9%.[26] Rates varied markedly across the country, from close to zero in Newfoundland and Labrador to 44.3% in Alberta."

Suggests that in 2006/2007 44% of Albertans are still getting snipped. So if I extrapolate the data, the rate is indeed decreasing across the country from 1970 at 43% to 32% in 2006, but Alberta still has a higher than average cut rate, that suggests to me that potentially more than half of Albertan males were still getting snipped in 1970. So your conclusion is still false.


However, I'm just going to bow out of this conversation because clearly, men don't like to be informed that sometimes, dinks stink. And in my experience stinky uncut dinks stink the worst.


Why don't we have a poll and get the % of posters that are cut vs uncut if you want a better sample size?

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Why don't we have a poll and get the % of posters that are cut vs uncut if you want a better sample size?

Agreed. Mods, please make this a poll?

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Your 'better data' which has already been questioned doesn't speak very clearly to cleanliness, rather just rates of circumcision. In fact, if you look at what the wiki article says that automaton 3 posted,



Suggests that in 2006/2007 44% of Albertans are still getting snipped. So if I extrapolate the data, the rate is indeed decreasing across the country from 1970 at 43% to 32% in 2006, but Alberta still has a higher than average cut rate, that suggests to me that potentially more than half of Albertan males were still getting snipped in 1970. So your conclusion is still false.


However, I'm just going to bow out of this conversation because clearly, men don't like to be informed that sometimes, dinks stink. And in my experience stinky uncut dinks stink the worst.


Why don't we have a poll and get the % of posters that are cut vs uncut if you want a better sample size?

Not to single out anyone here, just that this comment reeks vaguely of "2/10 would not bang"

No offence meant to anyone. Just thought it was a funny observation (yeah, my sense of humor sucks).

[pylon]

Originally Posted by FireFly

However, I'm just going to bow out of this conversation because clearly, men don't like to be informed that sometimes, dinks stink. And in my experience stinky uncut dinks stink the worst.

I get that. Every dude claims to have impeccable hygeine, yet almost every woman has a nasty story about an uncut guy.

I had a girlfriend that would gag at the sight of an un-cut one even if it was in a porno, and could not date men that weren't circumcised. I guess she had a really nasty experience with a guy with poor hygeine once, and it totally mentally scarred her.

It is weird what can happen from one bad expeirince. I had a mega traumatizing experience with a redhead once, and I cannot for the life of me, be attracted to any redhead as a result. Your brain does funny things when you have a really bad sexual experience.

All that being siad, I still think circumcision should be illegal until a male is 18, or it is medically neccesary.

[Burninator]

What happened? Sharing with strangers on the internet should help the healing process.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

Agreed. Mods, please make this a pole?

Fixed.

And make it a public one....lol.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by pylon

All that being siad, I still think circumcision should be illegal until a male is 18, or it is medically neccesary.

yip

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Burninator

What happened? Sharing with strangers on the internet should help the healing process.

She crapped herself. During a very 'intimate' act.

And I am not German, so I didn't like it.

[troutman]

Everybody poops.

[pylon]

nm

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by pylon

She crapped herself. During a very 'intimate' act.

And I am not German, so I didn't like it.

She try to charge you extra?

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by pylon

She crapped herself. During a very 'intimate' act.

And I am not German, so I didn't like it.

haha!

[karl262]

Browsing reddit, found a great article on the medical ethics of circumcision.

http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/m...equally-wrong/

I try not to talk about my research at dinner parties. I’ll say ‘medical ethics’ if pressed, which will sometimes trigger an unwelcome follow-up: ‘But what about medical ethics? That’s a pretty big field.’

‘I study lots of things,’ I’ll say – and that’s true, I do. ‘But I focus on medically-unnecessary surgeries performed on children.’

‘Like what?’

Like what, indeed. It’s rarely a smooth ride from there.

The truth is: I study childhood genital surgeries. Female, male and intersex genital surgeries, specifically, and I make similar arguments about each one. As a general rule, I think that healthy children – whatever their sex or gender – should be free from having parts of their most intimate sexual organs removed before they can understand what’s at stake in such a procedure. There are a number of reasons I’ve come to hold this view, but in some ways it’s pretty simple. ‘Private parts’ are private. They’re personal. Barring some serious disease to treat or physical malfunction to address (for which surgery is the most conservative option), they should probably be left alone.

That turns out to be extremely controversial.

In the 1990s, when the Canadian ethicist Margaret Somerville began to speak and write critically about the non-therapeutic circumcision of infant boys, she was attacked for even addressing the subject in public. In her book The Ethical Canary, she says her critics accused her of ‘detracting from the horror of female genital mutilation and weakening the case against it by speaking about it and infant male circumcision in the same context and pointing out that the same ethical and legal principles applied to both’.

She wasn’t alone. The anthropologist Kirsten Bell has advanced similar arguments in her university lectures, provoking a reaction that was ‘immediate and hostile … How dare I mention these two entirely different operations in the same breath! How dare I compare the innocuous and beneficial removal of the foreskin with the extreme mutilations enacted against females in other societies!’

It’s easy to see where these reactions are coming from. One frequent claim is that FGM is analogous to ‘castration’ or a ‘total penectomy’. Put that way, anyone who tried to compare the two on ethical (or other) grounds would be making a serious mistake – anatomically, at the very least.

You often hear that genital mutilation and male circumcision are very different. FGM is barbaric and crippling (‘always torture’, as the Guardian columnist Tanya Gold wrote recently), whereas male circumcision is comparatively inconsequential. Male circumcision is a ‘minor’ intervention that might even confer health benefits, whereas FGM is a drastic intervention with no health benefits, and only causes harm. The ‘prime motive’ for FGM is to control women’s sexuality; it is inherently sexist and discriminatory and is an expression of male power and domination. That’s just not true for male circumcision.

Unfortunately, there’s a problem with these claims. Almost every one of them is untrue, or severely misleading. They derive from a superficial understanding of both FGM and male circumcision; and they are inconsistent with what scholars have known about these practices for well over a decade. It’s time to re-examine what we ‘know’ about these controversial customs.