Recent circumcizion ruling in Germany - Page 15 - Politics and Economics

Montecore · 07-13-2012, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will1530

Okay so is there a legitimate argument against circumcision? I mean other than an arbitrary dislike of the religious aspects?

wil --

There are people that feel really, really, really, really disturbingly strongly emo about losing their foreskin; I remember being shocked when I read this post. Not shocked enough to change my view, but it did give me some understanding into the intactivist side of things.

I re-linked the link that was posted earlier ITT, it is a good read if nothing else.

will1530 · 07-13-2012, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomCollins

Cleaner is false for sure.
Social norms is false now, with 53% cut.
Religious preference should not allow for mutilation.
Less risk of contacting STDs- a very specific risk not present here.

How many dicks have you sucked? Actually never mind my personal experience

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-hiv-infection

Quote:

Families of anaerobic bacteria, which are unable to grow in the presence of oxygen, are abundant before circumcision but nearly disappear after the procedure. The researchers suspect that in uncircumcised men,

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomCollins

Less risk of contacting STDs- a very specific risk not present here.

WTF, I didn't realize we wiped out STDs in the USA?!?!?!

will1530 · 07-13-2012, 03:38 PM

Parents make preventative health decisions for their children all the time. Removing a useless flap of skin is no different (lol at calling it mutilation, emo much Tom?)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29882368.../#.UAB4t_XIwXg

Quote:

Circumcised males reduced their risk of infection with HPV, or human papillomavirus, by 35 percent and herpes by 28 percent. However, researchers found circumcision had no effect on the transmission of syphilis.

These aren't insignificant numbers, they are legitimate health benefits to a completely normal medical procedure.

TomCollins · 07-13-2012, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will1530

Parents make preventative health decisions for their children all the time. Removing a useless flap of skin is no different (lol at calling it mutilation, emo much Tom?)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29882368.../#.UAB4t_XIwXg

It, by definition, is mutilation.

And like I said, there's no reason that this can't be done with consent.

Also, learn to wash your dick if you can't understand cleanliness.

joeyDizzle · 07-13-2012, 03:41 PM

Does being circumcised reduce sexual pleasure?

Montecore · 07-13-2012, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeyDizzle

Does being circumcised reduce sexual pleasure?

Anecdotal evidence from people with an agenda suggests yes, scientifically the results are mixed/not conclusive.

TomCollins · 07-13-2012, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeyDizzle

Does being circumcised reduce sexual pleasure?

Sometimes it does. Especially in the cases where the baby LOSES THE PENIS.

will1530 · 07-13-2012, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomCollins

It, by definition, is a common medical procedure which has noted preventative health benefits.

And like I said, there's no reason that this can't be done with consent. It can, by why should it? The healing time, risk for complication and infection are minimized when done shortly after birth. Again, parents make all kinds of health decisions for their children.

Also, learn to wash your dick if you can't understand cleanliness.

Once again, I'm not going to take your opinion on things when there is scientific research to the contrary. Bacteria which cannot grow on a circumcised penis are prevalent on an uncircumcised penis.

Montecore · 07-13-2012, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomCollins

Sometimes it does. Especially in the cases where the baby LOSES THE PENIS.

How often does that happen? Can we compare that to the frequency of infant death or maiming to other voluntary activities, like automobile transport?

crzyjoedavola · 07-13-2012, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjkidd

This is paternalistic garbage. IF ONLY THERE WAS SOME WAY OF PROTECTING AGAINST HIV THAT IS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN CHOPPING OFF PART OF THE DICK!

Spoiler:

there is, and it's a lot more effective than 60%

just a guess
condomless sex with no foreskin > sex with condom with foreskin

TomCollins · 07-13-2012, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montecore

How often does that happen? Can we compare that to the frequency of infant death or maiming to other voluntary activities, like automobile transport?

It's rare, but it happens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by will1530

Once again, I'm not going to take your opinion on things when there is scientific research to the contrary. Bacteria which cannot grow on a circumcised penis are prevalent on an uncircumcised penis.

You know what also kills bacteria? Soap and water.

will1530 · 07-13-2012, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomCollins

It's rare, but it happens.

You know what also kills bacteria? Soap and water.

Wow, you're not going to let it go? Dude seriously, uncut dicks are dirtier, they have more bacteria built up, it is a scientifically proven fact of life. Get over it.

SenorKeeed · 07-13-2012, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crzyjoedavola

just a guess
condomless sex with no foreskin > sex with condom with foreskin

Also just a guess: thinking that being circumcised will make you some sort of sexual superman who doesn't have to worry about STDs is really really dumb. Any time an uncircumcised guy is at enough risk to justify wrapping it up, his cut alter ego should as well.

SenorKeeed · 07-13-2012, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montecore

How often does that happen? Can we compare that to the frequency of infant death or maiming to other voluntary activities, like automobile transport?

If the only benefit of automobile transport was looking cool while driving around then this would be a really good analogy.

Montecore · 07-13-2012, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjkidd

Also just a guess: thinking that being circumcised will make you some sort of sexual superman who doesn't have to worry about STDs is really really dumb. Any time an uncircumcised guy is at enough risk to justify wrap it up, his cut alter ego should as well.

But we can agree that that doesn't always happen, right? And in cases where our sons forget to glove up, one of them is going to have a statistically significantly smaller chance of catching a number of STDs if he dips his pen in skanky ink?