CDC Considers Promoting 'Universal Circumcision' For All Males Born in US

[magomago]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

I just put up a poll in ATOT asking men who were circumcised after they lost their virginity whether it was better before or after.

Sex better before or after circumcision?

Its not the same. The ability for the body to entirely regenerate is much more powerful than when we get older. This is why an operation for an older person can be much more risky, because they may not real properly. This is also why you can do incredibly invasive surgeries on babies and scarring will not occur near that of a young adult => the regenerative abilities of cells are simply outstanding.

If you want to prove that sensation after getting circumsized is less, you'd have to prove that there is a substancial difference in overall nerve density in the penis, or that the stimulation magnitude is any less.

Otherwise you are just going on and on about that which you dont understand. I'll cross post this.

 

[Patranus]

Just wrap your shit up.....problem solved.

But I guess that solution requires personal responsibility.....

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

I just put up a poll in ATOT asking men who were circumcised after they lost their virginity whether it was better before or after.

Sex better before or after circumcision?

Its not the same. The ability for the body to entirely regenerate is much more powerful than when we get older. This is why an operation for an older person can be much more risky, because they may not real properly. This is also why you can do incredibly invasive surgeries on babies and scarring will not occur near that of a young adult => the regenerative abilities of cells are simply outstanding.

If you want to prove that sensation after getting circumsized is less, you'd have to prove that there is a substancial difference in overall nerve density in the penis, or that the stimulation magnitude is any less.

Otherwise you are just going on and on about that which you dont understand. I'll cross post this.

What makes you think you understand it any better? Based on what I have learned about it, men who have tried sex before and after think the before was better. But that isn't really the issue. The issue is whether or not men have rights to their bodies. For women the paradigm seems to be, "My body, my choice" and for men it's "My body, no choice". (Men can be drafted into the military, however, whoopee--again, no choice, no freedom.)

I can't understand why people are so afraid of allowing adult men to make their own decisions on this matter. I think it comes down to some sort of a societal desire to put a stamp of ownership on men's bodies, to carry out an action consistent with the notion that males are to be subservient to women or to the government.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Men, do we need a rallying cry for men's rights on this issue? How about, "You can take my foreskin from my cold, dead penis!" Yeah, I know, it isn't very catchy. For amusement purposes, can anyone think of something catchier?

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: OCguy
"Public health officials are considering promoting routine circumcision for all baby boys born in the United States to reduce the spread of H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08...cumcision.html?_r=2&hp
It will be interesting as to what the first official draft at the end of the year says. Personally I dont mind being circumsized, but I really think it should be up to the parents.

Promoting, not mandating.

Reducing the odds of acquiring HIV is not the only benefit; IIRC, circumcised men have a significantly lower risk of penile cancer as well...

"Critics say it subjects baby boys to medically unnecessary surgery without their consent.

But Dr. Peter Kilmarx, chief of epidemiology for the division of H.I.V./AIDS prevention at the C.D.C., said that any step that could thwart the spread of H.I.V. must be given serious consideration."

Any step?

Ban teh gay?

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: OCguy
"Public health officials are considering promoting routine circumcision for all baby boys born in the United States to reduce the spread of H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08...cumcision.html?_r=2&hp


It will be interesting as to what the first official draft at the end of the year says. Personally I dont mind being circumsized, but I really think it should be up to the parents.

When I was a kid, my dad apologized to me for having me circumsized when I was a baby. He said the doctor strongly recommended it because there was evidence that circumcision reduced the occurences of certain diseases.

My dad was circumcised when he was 39 for the same reasons.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Dear U.S. Government,

Please stay the fuck away from my dick.

Sincerely,
Joe Citizen

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Dear U.S. Government,

Please stay the fuck away from my dick.

Sincerely,
Joe Citizen

Since the "Public health officials are considering promoting routine circumcision for all baby boys born in the United States to reduce the spread of H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS." do not have your sons circumcised.

No one is forcing you to do this.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Dear U.S. Government,

Please stay the fuck away from my dick.

Sincerely,
Joe Citizen

Since the "Public health officials are considering promoting routine circumcision for all baby boys born in the United States to reduce the spread of H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS." do not have your sons circumcised.

No one is forcing you to do this.

I know the difference between promoting and mandating; however, AFAIC, this is one area where the Federal Government has no business going. It's not that far-fetched to see such a treatment mandated under future healthcare plans.

But, maybe you're right. Maybe this will never go beyond the "Surgeon General Warning" type of policies. I just don't feel as comfortable as you apparently do with the Federal Government treading in these waters.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

It's amazing that people are shocked at female genital mutilation, but routine male genital mutilation is readily accepted. Why? Because males have little value to Americans as human beings and perhaps to people around the world in general. Or, as men's movement writer Warren Farrell seems to have described the situation, men are the disposable sex. If anything, what we need is a law forbidding involuntary circumcision, allowing men to make their own decisions starting at the official age of adulthood, age 18.

There is a big difference between male circumcision and female circumcision. With males it is done primarily as a means to prevent certain diseases. It does affect the sensitivity of the nerves in the penis but ask any circumcised man if that is an issue and they will likely say no. Female circumcision is done for a completely difference reason and actually can be defined as mutilating the female sex organs. These are performed more for cultural reasons thinking that it can cure psychological issues.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Dear U.S. Government,

Please stay the fuck away from my dick.

Sincerely,
Joe Citizen

Since the "Public health officials are considering promoting routine circumcision for all baby boys born in the United States to reduce the spread of H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS." do not have your sons circumcised.

No one is forcing you to do this.

I know the difference between promoting and mandating; however, AFAIC, this is one area where the Federal Government has no business going. It's not that far-fetched to see such a treatment mandated under future healthcare plans.

But, maybe you're right. Maybe this will never go beyond the "Surgeon General Warning" type of policies. I just don't feel as comfortable as you apparently do with the Federal Government treading in these waters.

I disagree. It is absolutely the business of the CDC to advise how to keep us healthier.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

It's amazing that people are shocked at female genital mutilation, but routine male genital mutilation is readily accepted. Why? Because males have little value to Americans as human beings and perhaps to people around the world in general. Or, as men's movement writer Warren Farrell seems to have described the situation, men are the disposable sex. If anything, what we need is a law forbidding involuntary circumcision, allowing men to make their own decisions starting at the official age of adulthood, age 18.

Right. And smoking cigs is the same as smoking meth too right? I mean, youre smoking.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
It is absolutely the business of the CDC to advise how to keep us healthier.

As long as it remains "advice" or "promoting," I guess it's fine.

/shrug

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: blackangst1
It is absolutely the business of the CDC to advise how to keep us healthier.

As long as it remains "advice" or "promoting," I guess it's fine.

/shrug

I agree. Thus I refer to the OP:

Public health officials are considering promoting routine circumcision

 

[Exterous]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Dear U.S. Government,

Please stay the fuck away from my dick.

Sincerely,
Joe Citizen

Hehe - ironic due to your screen name

 

[Ichigo]

Isn't this kind of like removing your extra kidney at birth since you don't need it and there's less chance of you getting whatever cancer forms on the kidney (pancreatic, I think)?

It just seems unnecessary if you can let people make the decision as an adult later and instead promote, like someone mentioned, comprehensive sexual education.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

AIDS a disease that will surely have a cure or vaccine in 20 years but instead we will circumcise babies now just in case lol

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
AIDS a disease that will surely have a cure or vaccine in 20 years but instead we will circumcise babies now just in case lol

You have far more confidence in science than I do. I would like to direct you to a book called The Coming Plague: Newly Emerging Diseases in a World Out of Balance by Laurie Garrett. Im sure you wont read it, but I recommend it.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

It's amazing that people are shocked at female genital mutilation, but routine male genital mutilation is readily accepted. Why? Because males have little value to Americans as human beings and perhaps to people around the world in general. Or, as men's movement writer Warren Farrell seems to have described the situation, men are the disposable sex. If anything, what we need is a law forbidding involuntary circumcision, allowing men to make their own decisions starting at the official age of adulthood, age 18.

There is a big difference between male circumcision and female circumcision. With males it is done primarily as a means to prevent certain diseases. It does affect the sensitivity of the nerves in the penis but ask any circumcised man if that is an issue and they will likely say no. Female circumcision is done for a completely difference reason and actually can be defined as mutilating the female sex organs. These are performed more for cultural reasons thinking that it can cure psychological issues.

That may be true, but how does that justify genital mutilation of males and why shouldn't men be allowed to make their own choices as to what happens to their bodies? Why are we so afraid of allowing men to reach age 18 and to then make their own decisions on this matter?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

It's amazing that people are shocked at female genital mutilation, but routine male genital mutilation is readily accepted. Why? Because males have little value to Americans as human beings and perhaps to people around the world in general. Or, as men's movement writer Warren Farrell seems to have described the situation, men are the disposable sex. If anything, what we need is a law forbidding involuntary circumcision, allowing men to make their own decisions starting at the official age of adulthood, age 18.

There is a big difference between male circumcision and female circumcision. With males it is done primarily as a means to prevent certain diseases. It does affect the sensitivity of the nerves in the penis but ask any circumcised man if that is an issue and they will likely say no. Female circumcision is done for a completely difference reason and actually can be defined as mutilating the female sex organs. These are performed more for cultural reasons thinking that it can cure psychological issues.

That may be true, but how does that justify genital mutilation of males and why shouldn't men be allowed to make their own choices as to what happens to their bodies? Why are we so afraid of allowing men to reach age 18 and to then make their own decisions on this matter?

I guess the same could be said of vaccinations too eh? I mean, parents really shouldnt have any rights as to the say so of their kids, when it comes their health or their bodies.

 

[dsity]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

It's amazing that people are shocked at female genital mutilation, but routine male genital mutilation is readily accepted. Why? Because males have little value to Americans as human beings and perhaps to people around the world in general. Or, as men's movement writer Warren Farrell seems to have described the situation, men are the disposable sex. If anything, what we need is a law forbidding involuntary circumcision, allowing men to make their own decisions starting at the official age of adulthood, age 18.

There is a big difference between male circumcision and female circumcision. With males it is done primarily as a means to prevent certain diseases. It does affect the sensitivity of the nerves in the penis but ask any circumcised man if that is an issue and they will likely say no. Female circumcision is done for a completely difference reason and actually can be defined as mutilating the female sex organs. These are performed more for cultural reasons thinking that it can cure psychological issues.

That may be true, but how does that justify genital mutilation of males and why shouldn't men be allowed to make their own choices as to what happens to their bodies? Why are we so afraid of allowing men to reach age 18 and to then make their own decisions on this matter?

I guess the same could be said of vaccinations too eh? I mean, parents really shouldnt have any rights as to the say so of their kids, when it comes their health or their bodies.

maybe. however vaccinations do not involve in the removal of flesh and with vaccinations your survival may depend on them. I'm also fairly positive being circumsized will only help if you are sexually active (11 years or older?). how about making that decision then . I'm almost certain very few people will volunteer.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dsity

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

It's amazing that people are shocked at female genital mutilation, but routine male genital mutilation is readily accepted. Why? Because males have little value to Americans as human beings and perhaps to people around the world in general. Or, as men's movement writer Warren Farrell seems to have described the situation, men are the disposable sex. If anything, what we need is a law forbidding involuntary circumcision, allowing men to make their own decisions starting at the official age of adulthood, age 18.

There is a big difference between male circumcision and female circumcision. With males it is done primarily as a means to prevent certain diseases. It does affect the sensitivity of the nerves in the penis but ask any circumcised man if that is an issue and they will likely say no. Female circumcision is done for a completely difference reason and actually can be defined as mutilating the female sex organs. These are performed more for cultural reasons thinking that it can cure psychological issues.

That may be true, but how does that justify genital mutilation of males and why shouldn't men be allowed to make their own choices as to what happens to their bodies? Why are we so afraid of allowing men to reach age 18 and to then make their own decisions on this matter?

I guess the same could be said of vaccinations too eh? I mean, parents really shouldnt have any rights as to the say so of their kids, when it comes their health or their bodies.

maybe. however vaccinations do not involve in the removal of flesh and with vaccinations your survival may depend on them. I'm also fairly positive being circumsized will only help if you are sexually active (11 years or older?). how about making that decision then . I'm almost certain very few people will volunteer.

and Im fairly positive being vaccinated against polio will only help if you ever encounter polio. whats your point? Its a ridiculous argument. Im fairly certain the number of people who dies a virgin is >.5%.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
If you wanted your hair cut, you could cut off your head and you would never have to do it again.

True, but not rightly relevant to the discussion at hand.

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Male circumcision is no big deal from a surgical perspective. If you think female circumcision is equivalent then you don't know anatomy.

From what know of anatomy; both the foreskin and the clitoris have extremely high concentrations of nerve endings, making the removal of either exceedingly painful, and resulting in significantly reducing the physical sensation of pleasure derived from intercourse. What differences are you alluding to?

there is a huge difference between the foreskin and the clit. you need to go back to biology 101.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I'm almost certain very few people will volunteer.

This is what they're afraid of--that men would decide not to get circumcised and not to subordinate themselves to what "society" wants for them.

In contrast, if you asked most adults, "Are you happy you were involuntarily vaccinated?" the overwhelming majority would probably say "Yes". Vaccination doesn't affect your genitals and leaves no physical scars and the negative consequences of not getting vaccinated are significant. In contrast, what are the negative consequences to a man of not being circumcised? You might enjoy a better sexual experience? Vaccination and circumcision are night and day.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

I just put up a poll in ATOT asking men who were circumcised after they lost their virginity whether it was better before or after.

Sex better before or after circumcision?

Its not the same. The ability for the body to entirely regenerate is much more powerful than when we get older. This is why an operation for an older person can be much more risky, because they may not real properly. This is also why you can do incredibly invasive surgeries on babies and scarring will not occur near that of a young adult => the regenerative abilities of cells are simply outstanding.

If you want to prove that sensation after getting circumsized is less, you'd have to prove that there is a substancial difference in overall nerve density in the penis, or that the stimulation magnitude is any less.

Otherwise you are just going on and on about that which you dont understand. I'll cross post this.

What makes you think you understand it any better? Based on what I have learned about it, men who have tried sex before and after think the before was better. But that isn't really the issue. The issue is whether or not men have rights to their bodies. For women the paradigm seems to be, "My body, my choice" and for men it's "My body, no choice". (Men can be drafted into the military, however, whoopee--again, no choice, no freedom.)

I can't understand why people are so afraid of allowing adult men to make their own decisions on this matter. I think it comes down to some sort of a societal desire to put a stamp of ownership on men's bodies, to carry out an action consistent with the notion that males are to be subservient to women or to the government.

you are a meninist

im glad i got chopped, a cock with that hood looks stupid