Circumcision should be seen 'in the same light as vaccines'
Brenda @ Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:53 pm
2Cdo 2Cdo:
Brenda Brenda:
I know a whole lot of uncut men, and none of them ever had an infection...
Must be a North American thing...
Must be a North American thing...
We don't need to hear about your past "career" in the old country.
Hey!!
I talk (...) to people, yaknow!
Brenda @ Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:02 pm
2Cdo 2Cdo:
I can't wait to hear her response! 
You know I have a great sense of humour
bootlegga @ Fri Apr 04, 2014 2:27 pm
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
bootlegga bootlegga:
Discounting all of those studies simply because ONE used an online survey - which for the record is an entirely valid choice - is exacly what someone with little or no understanding of research studies would do.
Discounting the study makes sense as your talking about adults before and after, not infants.
Naturally, as an adult having the procedure and having sex before and after would be different. But we're talking about infants and having it done at birth.
Since when do infants have sex? After all, the only ones who would really know about whether or not removal of the foreskin removes thousands of nerve endings and affects the quality of the sex they have would be ADULTS.
It should have been plainly obvious to you that I was ALWAYS talking about adults.
westmanguy @ Fri Apr 04, 2014 4:09 pm
Haha, good luck trying to ban parents from being able to opt for a circumcision for their sons. You'd have the full force of the Jewish community taking that to court under religious freedom under the constitution.
I think from everything I've read here, I'd sum it up that the benefits are marginal, but there are still benefits. Also, the data is inconclusive on both sides. I think it should be left up to the parents to decide. And should, further studies confirm without much doubt that there are *substantial* benefits to UTI, HIV/STI rates, etc. etc. then an actual POLICY debate on reintroducing it into a procedure that's covered by the provincial medical services' plans would be warranted.
At this point, I don't think the MSPs in the provinces should be funding it. But any movement to ban a parents' right when the data is so inconclusive and its not even *remotely* comparable to female circumcision is lunacy and will be met with much resistance.
I think for guys its an internal bias issue. If you're uncut, you're gonna want your son to be uncut. If you're cut, you likely will want your son cut. Its the mother that will end up shifting the pendulum if there's a disagreement.
Aesthetically speaking, I've always thought cut looks much better in the flaccid state. Erect, its all the damn same. Its not a deal breaker for a partner at all, but as a guy attracted to guys, I definitely have the internal bias that in the non-aroused state, the foreskin is an ever-so-minor turnoff. But that's my opinion haha.
Public_Domain @ Fri Apr 04, 2014 4:14 pm
saturn_656 saturn_656:
In my experience, infected wang isn't common at all.
virtually all infections I've had are mostly with my head.The one on my shoulders, that is.
Ears, teeth, eyes.
OnTheIce @ Fri Apr 04, 2014 4:16 pm
bootlegga bootlegga:
Since when do infants have sex? After all, the only ones who would really know about whether or not removal of the foreskin removes thousands of nerve endings and affects the quality of the sex they have would be ADULTS.
It should have been plainly obvious to you that I was ALWAYS talking about adults.
This post, it's report and findings, have to do with infants, not adults.
Arguing that sexual sensation is different in grown men pre and post circumcision is a no-brainier as I would assume it's very different.
However, this topic is about whether or not infants should have it done...so your constant reference to sexual performance and sensation simply don't apply to this topic.
OnTheIce @ Fri Apr 04, 2014 4:23 pm
Delwin Delwin:
In fact, for every case of UTI that is prevented (5 in 1000) there is 2 cases of people will have to get circumcised again because of a poor result.(10 in 1000.)
Where is this from, it's not within your link?
Guy_Fawkes @ Fri Apr 04, 2014 4:35 pm
westmanguy westmanguy:
Haha, good luck trying to ban parents from being able to opt for a circumcision for their sons. You'd have the full force of the Jewish community taking that to court under religious freedom under the constitution.
I think from everything I've read here, I'd sum it up that the benefits are marginal, but there are still benefits. Also, the data is inconclusive on both sides. I think it should be left up to the parents to decide. And should, further studies confirm without much doubt that there are *substantial* benefits to UTI, HIV/STI rates, etc. etc. then an actual POLICY debate on reintroducing it into a procedure that's covered by the provincial medical services' plans would be warranted.
At this point, I don't think the MSPs in the provinces should be funding it. But any movement to ban a parents' right when the data is so inconclusive and its not even *remotely* comparable to female circumcision is lunacy and will be met with much resistance.
I think for guys its an internal bias issue. If you're uncut, you're gonna want your son to be uncut. If you're cut, you likely will want your son cut. Its the mother that will end up shifting the pendulum if there's a disagreement.
Aesthetically speaking, I've always thought cut looks much better in the flaccid state. Erect, its all the damn same. Its not a deal breaker for a partner at all, but as a guy attracted to guys, I definitely have the internal bias that in the non-aroused state, the foreskin is an ever-so-minor turnoff. But that's my opinion haha.
I think from everything I've read here, I'd sum it up that the benefits are marginal, but there are still benefits. Also, the data is inconclusive on both sides. I think it should be left up to the parents to decide. And should, further studies confirm without much doubt that there are *substantial* benefits to UTI, HIV/STI rates, etc. etc. then an actual POLICY debate on reintroducing it into a procedure that's covered by the provincial medical services' plans would be warranted.
At this point, I don't think the MSPs in the provinces should be funding it. But any movement to ban a parents' right when the data is so inconclusive and its not even *remotely* comparable to female circumcision is lunacy and will be met with much resistance.
I think for guys its an internal bias issue. If you're uncut, you're gonna want your son to be uncut. If you're cut, you likely will want your son cut. Its the mother that will end up shifting the pendulum if there's a disagreement.
Aesthetically speaking, I've always thought cut looks much better in the flaccid state. Erect, its all the damn same. Its not a deal breaker for a partner at all, but as a guy attracted to guys, I definitely have the internal bias that in the non-aroused state, the foreskin is an ever-so-minor turnoff. But that's my opinion haha.
I agree with what ya said here, and the women I have asked about this say they prefer circumcised, they feel they all look funny flaccid but uncut ones look like a windsock.
Gunnair @ Fri Apr 04, 2014 4:50 pm
Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:
westmanguy westmanguy:
Haha, good luck trying to ban parents from being able to opt for a circumcision for their sons. You'd have the full force of the Jewish community taking that to court under religious freedom under the constitution.
I think from everything I've read here, I'd sum it up that the benefits are marginal, but there are still benefits. Also, the data is inconclusive on both sides. I think it should be left up to the parents to decide. And should, further studies confirm without much doubt that there are *substantial* benefits to UTI, HIV/STI rates, etc. etc. then an actual POLICY debate on reintroducing it into a procedure that's covered by the provincial medical services' plans would be warranted.
At this point, I don't think the MSPs in the provinces should be funding it. But any movement to ban a parents' right when the data is so inconclusive and its not even *remotely* comparable to female circumcision is lunacy and will be met with much resistance.
I think for guys its an internal bias issue. If you're uncut, you're gonna want your son to be uncut. If you're cut, you likely will want your son cut. Its the mother that will end up shifting the pendulum if there's a disagreement.
Aesthetically speaking, I've always thought cut looks much better in the flaccid state. Erect, its all the damn same. Its not a deal breaker for a partner at all, but as a guy attracted to guys, I definitely have the internal bias that in the non-aroused state, the foreskin is an ever-so-minor turnoff. But that's my opinion haha.
I think from everything I've read here, I'd sum it up that the benefits are marginal, but there are still benefits. Also, the data is inconclusive on both sides. I think it should be left up to the parents to decide. And should, further studies confirm without much doubt that there are *substantial* benefits to UTI, HIV/STI rates, etc. etc. then an actual POLICY debate on reintroducing it into a procedure that's covered by the provincial medical services' plans would be warranted.
At this point, I don't think the MSPs in the provinces should be funding it. But any movement to ban a parents' right when the data is so inconclusive and its not even *remotely* comparable to female circumcision is lunacy and will be met with much resistance.
I think for guys its an internal bias issue. If you're uncut, you're gonna want your son to be uncut. If you're cut, you likely will want your son cut. Its the mother that will end up shifting the pendulum if there's a disagreement.
Aesthetically speaking, I've always thought cut looks much better in the flaccid state. Erect, its all the damn same. Its not a deal breaker for a partner at all, but as a guy attracted to guys, I definitely have the internal bias that in the non-aroused state, the foreskin is an ever-so-minor turnoff. But that's my opinion haha.
I agree with what ya said here, and the women I have asked about this say they prefer circumcised, they feel they all look funny flaccid but uncut ones look like a windsock.
That's ironic given the look of some vaginas.
andyt @ Fri Apr 04, 2014 4:56 pm
We don't really need to go there, do we? Too many women are too inhibited about their vulvas (the correct term for what I hope you were referring to) already.
Gunnair @ Fri Apr 04, 2014 5:03 pm
andyt andyt:
We don't really need to go there, do we? Too many women are too inhibited about their vulvas (the correct term for what I hope you were referring to) already.
Well, someone with a vulva looking like a dropped pie isn't in a position to offer criticism on the uncircumcised dick.
Delwin @ Fri Apr 04, 2014 5:05 pm
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
Delwin Delwin:
In fact, for every case of UTI that is prevented (5 in 1000) there is 2 cases of people will have to get circumcised again because of a poor result.(10 in 1000.)
Where is this from, it's not within your link?
Of every 1,000 boys who *are not* circumcised:
7 will be admitted to hospital for a UTI before they are one year old.
Of every 1,000 boys who are circumcised:
2 will be admitted to hospital for a urinary tract infection (UTI) before they are one year old.
About 10 babies may need to have the circumcision done again because of a poor result.
I deduced that because there are 5 more UTI's per 1000's, it can be said the circumcision is preventing them. I believe that is fair. It's all in my post.
These numbers themselves were taken from :
http://www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/circumcision
This info is both in my post and in the link.
andyt @ Fri Apr 04, 2014 5:12 pm
Gunnair Gunnair:
andyt andyt:
We don't really need to go there, do we? Too many women are too inhibited about their vulvas (the correct term for what I hope you were referring to) already.
Well, someone with a vulva looking like a dropped pie isn't in a position to offer criticism on the uncircumcised dick.
Exactly what kind of women are you going out with? Not only have i not seen that, but I've not had one woman make nasty comments about my dick. Not that any sang peans to it's beauty either.
I did, however, link an objective study that found pleasure for women is enhanced by uncircumcised dicks. You could scroll back and see.
Jabberwalker @ Fri Apr 04, 2014 5:19 pm
Aye. There's the rub.
andyt @ Fri Apr 04, 2014 5:28 pm
It ain't the meat it's the motion. But, that extra ridge over the dick doesn't hurt, and the lubrication the glans supplies makes sure it doesn't hurt. Also helps if the woman is cheating on her spouse (more likely to have an orgasm).