Can a city troll?

[irishScott]

Wow. Rare to see so many uninformed blowhards in one thread. Religion is irrelevant.

It's a simple issue:

1. Male circumcision does not impede function. In fact in most cases it improves the sexual experience for both parties by enabling it to last longer, and if done right by a medical professional in no way affects a man's ability to achieve orgasm or use his penis. It is also more sanitary and provides mild protection from some STDs.

Male circumcision = net positive.

2. Female circumcision has 3 types, but all have been shown to increase the risk of death of a child during birth, as well as other complications. (Scarring, bladder infections due to blockage, inability to orgasm, etc)

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

A June 2006 study by the WHO has cast doubt on the safety of genital cutting of any kind.[27] This study was conducted on a cohort of 28,393 women attending delivery wards at 28 obstetric centers in areas of Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Senegal and The Sudan. A high proportion of these mothers had undergone FGC. According to the WHO criteria, all types of FGC were found to pose an increased risk of death to the baby (15% for Type I, 32% for Type II, and 55% for Type III). Mothers with FGC Type III were also found to be 30% more at risk for cesarean sections and had a 70% increase in postpartum hemorrhage compared to women without FGC. Estimating from these results, and doing a rough population estimate of mothers in Africa with FGC, an additional 10 to 20 per thousand babies in Africa die during delivery as a result of the mothers having undergone genital cutting.

Female circumcision = net negative, sometimes resulting in dead babies and dead mothers on child birth. Literally. That's why it's illegal and considered mutilation.




Do your homework people, sheesh.

 

[Jaskalas]

Live in a city where people agree with you and it will be so.

That sort of freedom cannot happen if the state or feds get involved. It's better to have this happen on the local level. Claiming you cannot move is an excuse.

Sorry but that's some dumb shit. You should be allowed to live where you want without having to worry about your neighbors agreeing with all your beliefs. Same sort of logic that would have supported restrictive covenants.

You think neighbors agreeing with all your beliefs is bad? Try your whole state or the entire nation of 310 million people forced to live under the same dictations.

The people of SF need to have their space to do as they please. (Without harming others) It does not belong to you to tell them what their majority should do. If you don’t give them that there will be violent differences down the road on more serious subject matter. Worst of all such differences would consume a nation instead of a city. Give them the damn city!

 

[kylebisme]

Male circumcision does not impede function.

What makes you so sure of this? I can't rightly speak from experience as mine was lopped off before I ever had a chance to rightly get to know it, but I've seen reasonable arguments going both ways on the matter, as recounted in this Wiki article on the subject.

It is also more sanitary and provides mild protection from some STDs.

if you wash your crotch regularly and use condoms when sleeping around, being circumcised or otherwise doesn't rightly make any difference.

Regardless, my primary issue with circumcision is the pain inflicted during the procedure. I once caught the skin of my shaft in the zipper of my pants, which was downright excruciating, and I've yet to see any good reason to put an infant through anything of the sort.

Female circumcision has 3 types,

The Wiki page you linked lists 4 types, with more subdivisions, yet the study you refereed to ignores such distinctions. If any of those variations don't result in complications such as the ones you mentioned, would you support parents who want to subject their daughters to them?

 

[Raghu]

Cutting the ear lobe of a child is ok?

 

[MrChad]

Parents do all sorts of fucked up shit to their kids and male circumcision barely gets near the top of the list. I don't really have much issue with it and it is NOT the same as female "circumcision" which drastically alters the female parts. I was circumcised at birth, I don't really care.

Please give examples of the "fucked up shit" parents do to their kids. I don't see how you can argue that male circumcision does not "drastically alter" the penis, because it does.

Also, I kind of agree with the people who brought up the abortion thing. How could one justify abortion and not circumcision? You're still deciding the fate of a child before it is to old to decide for itself. I also have no problem with abortion.

The rights of an unborn child and the rights a born one are very different things. I'm not sure how abortion rights are relevant to this discussion at all.

Wow. Rare to see so many uninformed blowhards in one thread. Religion is irrelevant.

It's a simple issue:

1. Male circumcision does not impede function. In fact in most cases it improves the sexual experience for both parties by enabling it to last longer, and if done right by a medical professional in no way affects a man's ability to achieve orgasm or use his penis. It is also more sanitary and provides mild protection from some STDs.

Male circumcision = net positive.

2. Female circumcision has 3 types, but all have been shown to increase the risk of death of a child during birth, as well as other complications. (Scarring, bladder infections due to blockage, inability to orgasm, etc)

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

A June 2006 study by the WHO has cast doubt on the safety of genital cutting of any kind.[27] This study was conducted on a cohort of 28,393 women attending delivery wards at 28 obstetric centers in areas of Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Senegal and The Sudan. A high proportion of these mothers had undergone FGC. According to the WHO criteria, all types of FGC were found to pose an increased risk of death to the baby (15% for Type I, 32% for Type II, and 55% for Type III). Mothers with FGC Type III were also found to be 30% more at risk for cesarean sections and had a 70% increase in postpartum hemorrhage compared to women without FGC. Estimating from these results, and doing a rough population estimate of mothers in Africa with FGC, an additional 10 to 20 per thousand babies in Africa die during delivery as a result of the mothers having undergone genital cutting.

Female circumcision = net negative, sometimes resulting in dead babies and dead mothers on child birth. Literally. That's why it's illegal and considered mutilation.




Do your homework people, sheesh.

I'm not going to argue that male circumcision is more severe or risky than female circumcision. But I disagree with your assertion that it's a net positive. The study that shows it lowers the risk of STD infection is severely flawed for several reasons, and empirical evidence shows that STD rates in Western Europe and North America are roughly equal even though circumcision rates are far higher in North America. Furthermore, it DOES "affect a man's ability to achieve orgasm" given that thousands of nerve endings are lost during the procedure. It doesn't remove the ability to achieve orgasm, but it certainly affects it. Frankly, unless you were circumcised as an adult and experienced sex both while uncircumcised and circumcised, I'm not sure how you can dismiss the sexual side effects.

Justifications for male circumcision are really similar to justifications for female circumcisions in cultures where it is the norm. It's cleaner, it's part of religious custom, etc. Even if we accept those justifications, it still should be left to the decision of the child himself when he is old enough to consent.

 

[irishScott]

What makes you so sure of this? I can't rightly speak from experience as mine was lopped off before I ever had a chance to rightly get to know it, but I've seen reasonable arguments going both ways on the matter, as recounted in this Wiki article on the subject.


if you wash your crotch regularly and use condoms when sleeping around, being circumcised or otherwise doesn't rightly make any difference.

Regardless, my primary issue with circumcision is the pain inflicted during the procedure. I once caught the skin of my shaft in the zipper of my pants, which was downright excruciating, and I've yet to see any good reason to put an infant through anything of the sort.


The Wiki page you linked lists 4 types, with more subdivisions, yet the study you refereed to ignores such distinctions. If any of those variations don't result in complications such as the ones you mentioned, would you support parents who want to subject their daughters to them?

The 4th type, if you read the page is:

There are other forms of FGM, collectively referred to as Type IV, that may not involve tissue removal. The WHO defines Type IV FGM as "all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example, pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization."[24] This includes a diverse range of practices, such as pricking the clitoris with needles, burning or scarring the genitals as well as ripping or tearing of the vagina.[24] Type IV is found primarily among isolated ethnic groups as well as in combination with other types.[citation needed]

Yes, obviously these are the exception to the rule. 🙄 But then again you're a truther. Verifying your arguments is not your strong suit.

 

[irishScott]

Please give examples of the "fucked up shit" parents do to their kids. I don't see how you can argue that male circumcision does not "drastically alter" the penis, because it does.



The rights of an unborn child and the rights a born one are very different things. I'm not sure how abortion rights are relevant to this discussion at all.



I'm not going to argue that male circumcision is more severe or risky than female circumcision. But I disagree with your assertion that it's a net positive. The study that shows it lowers the risk of STD infection is severely flawed for several reasons, and empirical evidence shows that STD rates in Western Europe and North America are roughly equal even though circumcision rates are far higher in North America. Furthermore, it DOES "affect a man's ability to achieve orgasm" given that thousands of nerve endings are lost during the procedure. It doesn't remove the ability to achieve orgasm, but it certainly affects it. Frankly, unless you were circumcised as an adult and experienced sex both while uncircumcised and circumcised, I'm not sure how you can dismiss the sexual side effects.

Justifications for male circumcision are really similar to justifications for female circumcisions in cultures where it is the norm. It's cleaner, it's part of religious custom, etc. Even if we accept those justifications, it still should be left to the decision of the child himself when he is old enough to consent.

See my previous post. I'm circumcised and can easily reach orgasm in under a minute during sex if I don't pace myself. I also know of no circumcised guy who's complained about it. Ever, aside from some attention-whoring protestors telling me I was mutilated as a child, at which I lol. Life is grand, the sex is grand, and I last longer. Why should I be pissed about this again? I don't need objectivity to know great sex is great.

Male circumcision does not produce any negative consequences if done right, unless for some reason you want to decrease your endurance.

And as I pointed out, female circumcision kills babies. Literally. There is no justification for a procedure that does that. You could make the case that it could be offered if a woman was also getting her tubes tied. That's all. Religion has nothing to do with it.

 

[artikk]

See my previous post. I'm circumcised and can easily reach orgasm in under a minute during sex if I don't pace myself. I also know of no circumcised guy who's complained about it. Ever, aside from some attention-whoring protestors telling me I was mutilated as a child, at which I lol. Life is grand, the sex is grand, and I last longer. Why should I be pissed about this again? I don't need objectivity to know great sex is great.

Male circumcision does not produce any negative consequences if done right, unless for some reason you want to decrease your endurance.

And as I pointed out, female circumcision kills babies. Literally. There is no justification for a procedure that does that. You could make the case that it could be offered if a woman was also getting her tubes tied. That's all. Religion has nothing to do with it.

Anecdotal evidence doesn't count. Your experience can't be just arbitrarily extrapolated to all males that have experienced circumcision. Experimental evidence with a statistically large sample does count as evidence, though.
Do you see the difference between the two or not?

 

[kylebisme]

But then again you're a truther. Verifying your arguments is not your strong suit.

It seems you are the one who can't support your argument here, as you've resorted to ad hominem instead.

 

[Zargon]

Hey now, it's my god given right to mutilate children and honor kill my family. If I want to remove half the surface area of the penis, that's my business. If I want to cut out the frontal part of his brain, that's my right. Fuck you and your left wing bullshit.

more fail.

life is a right inherit in the declaration of independene that the USA is founed on, argument has no legs.

you guys comparing circumcision to murdering someone lose all credibility in an argument.

big LL at arguing that abortion is OK because its NOT MURDER, but then trolling to argue that you should be able to honorkill

 

[shortylickens]

more fail.

life is a right inherit in the declaration of independene that the USA is founed on, argument has no legs.

you guys comparing circumcision to murdering someone lose all credibility in an argument.

big LL at arguing that abortion is OK because its NOT MURDER, but then trolling to argue that you should be able to honorkill

So how come SF is cool with abortion?

 

[Zargon]

So how come SF is cool with abortion?

beats me

I am not really anti-abortion, but I am against using to avoid responsibilities.

i will also point out that the risks and complications go up with age for circumcision


here is what webmd sys for pro/con:

What are the benefits of circumcision?
There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits, including:

A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
A reduced risk of sexually transmitted diseases in men.
Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).
Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean.

Note: Some studies show that good hygiene can help prevent certain problems with the penis, including infections and swelling, even if the penis is not circumcised. In addition, using a consom during sex will help prevent STDs and other infections.

What are the risks of circumcision?
Like any surgical procedure, there are risks associated with circumcision. However, this risk is low. Problems associated with circumcision include:

Pain
Risk of bleeding and infection at the site of the circumcision
Irritation of the glans
Increased risk of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the penis)
Risk of injury to the penis

 

[Infohawk]

It's funny how certain everyone is about their position. This is really just a childish round of "my dick style is better than yours." (IrishScott's personal anecdotes are particularly laughable.) Of course the majority of the circumcised people don't know what's it's like to be uncut and none of the uncut people don't know what it's like to be cut.

Bottom line is this is not a huge deal either way. But circumcision is on the decline even in this country and 99.9% of 18 year olds with foreskin would never want it cut off. I always find the health benefits arguments a little silly. Obviously, if you cut all your skin off you'll never get skin cancer but most people like their skin. Except for maybe wisdom teeth (and not always) there is no other part of the body that is routinely removed before anything is wrong with it. The only thing keeping circumcision going is "I want my kid to look like me" and religion.

 

[Zargon]

It's funny how certain everyone is about their position. This is really just a childish round of "my dick style is better than yours." (IrishScott's personal anecdotes are particularly laughable.) Of course the majority of the circumcised people don't know what's it's like to be uncut and none of the uncut people don't know what it's like to be cut.

Bottom line is this is not a huge deal either way. But circumcision is on the decline even in this country and 99.9% of 18 year olds with foreskin would never want it cut off. I always find the health benefits arguments a little silly. Obviously, if you cut all your skin off you'll never get skin cancer but most people like their skin. Except for maybe wisdom teeth (and not always) there is no other part of the body that is routinely removed before anything is wrong with it. The only thing keeping circumcision going is "I want my kid to look like me" and religion.

yes, itsnot, so its silly to make a law about it

 

[irishScott]

Anecdotal evidence doesn't count. Your experience can't be just arbitrarily extrapolated to all males that have experienced circumcision. Experimental evidence with a statistically large sample does count as evidence, though.
Do you see the difference between the two or not?

ORLY? Because that and personal philosophy seem to be the entirety of arguments for the other side. So theirs count and mine don't?

 

[irishScott]

It's funny how certain everyone is about their position. This is really just a childish round of "my dick style is better than yours." (IrishScott's personal anecdotes are particularly laughable.) Of course the majority of the circumcised people don't know what's it's like to be uncut and none of the uncut people don't know what it's like to be cut.

Bottom line is this is not a huge deal either way. But circumcision is on the decline even in this country and 99.9% of 18 year olds with foreskin would never want it cut off. I always find the health benefits arguments a little silly. Obviously, if you cut all your skin off you'll never get skin cancer but most people like their skin. Except for maybe wisdom teeth (and not always) there is no other part of the body that is routinely removed before anything is wrong with it. The only thing keeping circumcision going is "I want my kid to look like me" and religion.

It's called small-talk/casual discussion smart guy. Water cooler debate. Laugh all you like.

 

[Infohawk]

It's called small-talk/casual discussion smart guy. Water cooler debate. Laugh all you like.

Fair enough. I'll be the first to agree that P&N isn't a fancy-pants formal debate type of place. I still think you're being a little overconfident in your position just like people on the other side are being overconfident too. Like I said, most guys don't know what it's like to be in the other guy's dick so to speak. 😛