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

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: 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.

i have a quarter sized scar on my shoulder from the small pox vaccine. i am asked all the time if i was shot.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: 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.

I guess youre right. A smaller chance of getting HIV and herpes is no big deal.

And I would pose the opposite question: what are the negative effects OF getting circumcised? Are there cases where men are are under psychological turmoil because of getting cut? Sure there are probably a very small fraction of men who wish they werent, but there is a small minority of uncircumcised men who wish they were.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I can't believe all the foreskin hate. The fact is it's there naturally and it's treated like some birth defect that needs to be corrected. Quick anatomy lesson, it's supposed to be there.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: 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

:laugh: well played.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: blackangst1And I would pose the opposite question: what are the negative effects OF getting circumcised?

The negative effects? Reduced enjoyment of sexual activity. The loss of the freedom to make your own choices about your life. Why can't men have the same rights women have in these regards? Do men just have lower status in everyone's eyes?

As I think about it, I'm almost wondering if having involuntary circumcision legal for men but illegal for women essentially constitutes a 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause violation. (I'm sure the courts have said no, but that doesn't meant that they are actually reading and interpreting it properly since they are prone to political and societal bias.)

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: blackangst1And I would pose the opposite question: what are the negative effects OF getting circumcised?

The negative effects? Reduced enjoyment of sexual activity. The loss of the freedom to make your own choices about your life. Why can't men have the same rights women have in these regards? Do men just have lower status in everyone's eyes?

As I think about it, I'm almost wondering if having involuntary circumcision legal for men but illegal for women essentially constitutes a 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause violation. (I'm sure the courts have said no, but that doesn't meant that they are actually reading and interpreting it properly since they are prone to political and societal bias.)

:roll: how in the hell do you know uncut men enjoy sex more? i saw your stupid pole in L&R and it had 1 person answer yes to your idiotic question and you dont even know if that person is telling you the truth but you treat it like it is scientific fact. Are you cut? if you are i think you need to seek professional help with your foaming at the mouth hissy fit about this, your whole argument is petty dumb. if you are cut go sue your parents for emotional trauma its clear you have tons of it. :roll:

PS. You do know that female circumcision is cutting out the clit, its the same as cutting off the head of your dick. that is mutilation, removing foreskin is not even close.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: 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.

I guess youre right. A smaller chance of getting HIV and herpes is no big deal.

And I would pose the opposite question: what are the negative effects OF getting circumcised? Are there cases where men are are under psychological turmoil because of getting cut? Sure there are probably a very small fraction of men who wish they werent, but there is a small minority of uncircumcised men who wish they were.

i think whippersnapper is a case study waiting to happen.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: blackangst1And I would pose the opposite question: what are the negative effects OF getting circumcised?

The negative effects? Reduced enjoyment of sexual activity. The loss of the freedom to make your own choices about your life. Why can't men have the same rights women have in these regards? Do men just have lower status in everyone's eyes?

As I think about it, I'm almost wondering if having involuntary circumcision legal for men but illegal for women essentially constitutes a 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause violation. (I'm sure the courts have said no, but that doesn't meant that they are actually reading and interpreting it properly since they are prone to political and societal bias.)

In short, the answer IMO is that you would have to prove that the distinction between the two policies is based on gender discrimination, and not the medical difference.

The fact that there are significant medical differences, and that our culture really isn't about discrimination against male children, would make that very difficult IMO.

BTW, for some reason your handle looks a bit like a euphamism for circumsicion.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: blackangst1And I would pose the opposite question: what are the negative effects OF getting circumcised?

The negative effects? Reduced enjoyment of sexual activity. The loss of the freedom to make your own choices about your life. Why can't men have the same rights women have in these regards? Do men just have lower status in everyone's eyes?

As I think about it, I'm almost wondering if having involuntary circumcision legal for men but illegal for women essentially constitutes a 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause violation. (I'm sure the courts have said no, but that doesn't meant that they are actually reading and interpreting it properly since they are prone to political and societal bias.)

:roll: how in the hell do you know uncut men enjoy sex more? i saw your stupid pole in L&R and it had 1 person answer yes to your idiotic question and you dont even know if that person is telling you the truth but you treat it like it is scientific fact. Are you cut? if you are i think you need to seek professional help with your foaming at the mouth hissy fit about this, your whole argument is petty dumb. if you are cut go sue your parents for emotional trauma its clear you have tons of it. :roll:

What an obnoxious post, but the answer is, medical/sexual experts say clearly that their studies show it significatly reduces sexual pleasure generally. They explain why, too.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: blackangst1And I would pose the opposite question: what are the negative effects OF getting circumcised?

The negative effects? Reduced enjoyment of sexual activity. The loss of the freedom to make your own choices about your life. Why can't men have the same rights women have in these regards? Do men just have lower status in everyone's eyes?

As I think about it, I'm almost wondering if having involuntary circumcision legal for men but illegal for women essentially constitutes a 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause violation. (I'm sure the courts have said no, but that doesn't meant that they are actually reading and interpreting it properly since they are prone to political and societal bias.)

:roll: how in the hell do you know uncut men enjoy sex more? i saw your stupid pole in L&R and it had 1 person answer yes to your idiotic question and you dont even know if that person is telling you the truth but you treat it like it is scientific fact. Are you cut? if you are i think you need to seek professional help with your foaming at the mouth hissy fit about this, your whole argument is petty dumb. if you are cut go sue your parents for emotional trauma its clear you have tons of it. :roll:

What an obnoxious post, but the answer is, medical/sexual experts say clearly that their studies show it significatly reduces sexual pleasure generally. They explain why, too.

whatever you say skippy.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: blackangst1And I would pose the opposite question: what are the negative effects OF getting circumcised?

The negative effects? Reduced enjoyment of sexual activity. The loss of the freedom to make your own choices about your life. Why can't men have the same rights women have in these regards? Do men just have lower status in everyone's eyes?

As I think about it, I'm almost wondering if having involuntary circumcision legal for men but illegal for women essentially constitutes a 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause violation. (I'm sure the courts have said no, but that doesn't meant that they are actually reading and interpreting it properly since they are prone to political and societal bias.)

:roll: how in the hell do you know uncut men enjoy sex more? i saw your stupid pole

Hey! No need to get personal!

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: blackangst1And I would pose the opposite question: what are the negative effects OF getting circumcised?

The negative effects? Reduced enjoyment of sexual activity. The loss of the freedom to make your own choices about your life. Why can't men have the same rights women have in these regards? Do men just have lower status in everyone's eyes?

As I think about it, I'm almost wondering if having involuntary circumcision legal for men but illegal for women essentially constitutes a 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause violation. (I'm sure the courts have said no, but that doesn't meant that they are actually reading and interpreting it properly since they are prone to political and societal bias.)

:roll: how in the hell do you know uncut men enjoy sex more? i saw your stupid pole in L&R and it had 1 person answer yes to your idiotic question and you dont even know if that person is telling you the truth but you treat it like it is scientific fact. Are you cut? if you are i think you need to seek professional help with your foaming at the mouth hissy fit about this, your whole argument is petty dumb. if you are cut go sue your parents for emotional trauma its clear you have tons of it. :roll:

PS. You do know that female circumcision is cutting out the clit, its the same as cutting off the head of your dick. that is mutilation, removing foreskin is not even close.

Never ever talk about cuttin off the end of ones dick
This is just understood and respected internet protocol

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: blackangst1And I would pose the opposite question: what are the negative effects OF getting circumcised?

The negative effects? Reduced enjoyment of sexual activity. The loss of the freedom to make your own choices about your life. Why can't men have the same rights women have in these regards? Do men just have lower status in everyone's eyes?

As I think about it, I'm almost wondering if having involuntary circumcision legal for men but illegal for women essentially constitutes a 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause violation. (I'm sure the courts have said no, but that doesn't meant that they are actually reading and interpreting it properly since they are prone to political and societal bias.)

:roll: how in the hell do you know uncut men enjoy sex more? i saw your stupid pole in L&R and it had 1 person answer yes to your idiotic question and you dont even know if that person is telling you the truth but you treat it like it is scientific fact. Are you cut? if you are i think you need to seek professional help with your foaming at the mouth hissy fit about this, your whole argument is petty dumb. if you are cut go sue your parents for emotional trauma its clear you have tons of it. :roll:

What an obnoxious post, but the answer is, medical/sexual experts say clearly that their studies show it significatly reduces sexual pleasure generally. They explain why, too.

whatever you say skippy.

FYI, I'm going to adjst my position to allow for more controversy on the issue.

I've run across the claims that I stated, but did some more checking for this thread, and there is more controversy than I'd seen previously.

You can find a study saying what i said - and you can find another saying something else.

So add the word 'might' in fron of the statements about reducing sexual pleasure.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Perknose
Psychologically, this is clearly a 2nd Amendment issue.

Brings a new light on the term "gun-grabber"

as well as "shooting your load"...no longer does the phrase merely apply to discharging a firearm into a basket of laundry

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is still going on as some civil rights issue? Wow.

The CDC has made this recommendation because they've analyzed the risk vs benefits of the procedure. That's why anything is suggested at all, such as with vaccinations.

I was circumcised, my son was, and it's no big deal.

Another tempest in a teapot.

 

[bob4432]

a buddy of mine had ulcers on his leg - not diabetes related but circulation, he was told because he was tall (6'6") and had some weird vascular issue. anyway, he had a procedure done where i guess the docs would graft the skin from the circumsion onto the wound, and it would adhere to the rest of his skin. worked pretty good, too bad he died 6mos later of something else

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: blackangst1And I would pose the opposite question: what are the negative effects OF getting circumcised?

The negative effects? Reduced enjoyment of sexual activity. The loss of the freedom to make your own choices about your life. Why can't men have the same rights women have in these regards? Do men just have lower status in everyone's eyes?

As I think about it, I'm almost wondering if having involuntary circumcision legal for men but illegal for women essentially constitutes a 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause violation. (I'm sure the courts have said no, but that doesn't meant that they are actually reading and interpreting it properly since they are prone to political and societal bias.)

:roll: how in the hell do you know uncut men enjoy sex more? i saw your stupid pole in L&R and it had 1 person answer yes to your idiotic question and you dont even know if that person is telling you the truth but you treat it like it is scientific fact. Are you cut? if you are i think you need to seek professional help with your foaming at the mouth hissy fit about this, your whole argument is petty dumb. if you are cut go sue your parents for emotional trauma its clear you have tons of it. :roll:

What an obnoxious post, but the answer is, medical/sexual experts say clearly that their studies show it significatly reduces sexual pleasure generally. They explain why, too.

whatever you say skippy.

FYI, I'm going to adjst my position to allow for more controversy on the issue.

I've run across the claims that I stated, but did some more checking for this thread, and there is more controversy than I'd seen previously.

You can find a study saying what i said - and you can find another saying something else.

So add the word 'might' in fron of the statements about reducing sexual pleasure.

thank you.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Citrix:roll: how in the hell do you know uncut men enjoy sex more?

This is what I have read about studies on this subject, elsewhere.

Are you cut? if you are i think you need to seek professional help with your foaming at the mouth hissy fit about this, your whole argument is petty dumb.

My interest in this subject should be pretty clear based on what else I've posted. I'm an advocate of men's rights, such as the right of men to determine for themselves what is best for their genitals and for their lives. Also, this issue is symbolic of the low status that men have in our society and of societal and governmental discrimination against men in general.

 

[1prophet]

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32555100/ns/health-aids/">Circumcision no AIDS protection for gay men
Report expected to influence government's recommendation on procedure</a>

ATLANTA - Circumcision, which has helped prevent AIDS among heterosexual men in Africa, doesn't help protect gay men from the virus, according to the largest U.S. study to look at the question.

The research, presented at a conference Tuesday, is expected to influence the government's first guidance on circumcision.

Circumcision "is not considered beneficial" in stopping the spread of HIV through gay sex, said Dr. Peter Kilmarx, of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

However, the CDC is still considering recommending it for other groups, including baby boys and high-risk heterosexual men.

UNAIDS and other international health organizations promote circumcision, the cutting away of the foreskin, as an important strategy for reducing the spread of the AIDS virus. There hasn't been the same kind of push for circumcision in the United States.

For one thing, nearly 80 percent of American men are already circumcised ? a much higher proportion than most other countries. Worldwide, the male circumcision rate is estimated at about 30 percent.

Also, while HIV spreads primarily through heterosexual sex in Africa and some other parts of the world, in the United States it has mainly infected gay men. Only about 4 percent of U.S. men are gay, according to preliminary CDC estimates released at the conference this week. But they account for more than half of the new HIV infections each year.

Previous research has suggested circumcision doesn't make a difference when anal sex is involved. The latest study, by CDC researchers, looked at nearly 4,900 men who had anal sex with an HIV-infected partner and found the infection rate, about 3.5 percent, was approximately the same whether the men were circumcised or not.


Government recommendations on circumcision are still being written and may not be final until next year, following public comment. CDC doctors and many experts believe there is a good argument for recommending that baby boys and heterosexual men at a higher risk for HIV be circumcised.

The definition of "high risk" is still being discussed, said Kilmarx, chief of the epidemiology branch in the CDC's HIV division.

Circumcision is a sensitive issue laden with cultural and religious meaning, particularly when babies are involved, Kilmarx acknowledged.


"It's seen by many as more than just as medical procedure," he said. It's possible the government won't make recommendations but instead will promote an education campaign for parents about the procedure's potential benefits and risks, he added.

The prospect of the government promoting circumcision of infants has already drawn fire from an advocacy group called Intact America. The organization, based in Tarrytown, N.Y., parked a motorized billboard this week outside the hotel hosting the HIV conference, displaying the message: "Tell the CDC that circumcising babies doesn't prevent HIV."

"It's removing healthy, functioning, sexual and protective tissue from a person who cannot consent. You're mutilating a child," said Georgeanne Chapin, the group's executive director.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: blackangst1And I would pose the opposite question: what are the negative effects OF getting circumcised?

The negative effects? Reduced enjoyment of sexual activity. The loss of the freedom to make your own choices about your life. Why can't men have the same rights women have in these regards? Do men just have lower status in everyone's eyes?

As I think about it, I'm almost wondering if having involuntary circumcision legal for men but illegal for women essentially constitutes a 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause violation. (I'm sure the courts have said no, but that doesn't meant that they are actually reading and interpreting it properly since they are prone to political and societal bias.)

:roll: how in the hell do you know uncut men enjoy sex more? i saw your stupid pole in L&R and it had 1 person answer yes to your idiotic question and you dont even know if that person is telling you the truth but you treat it like it is scientific fact. Are you cut? if you are i think you need to seek professional help with your foaming at the mouth hissy fit about this, your whole argument is petty dumb. if you are cut go sue your parents for emotional trauma its clear you have tons of it. :roll:

What an obnoxious post, but the answer is, medical/sexual experts say clearly that their studies show it significatly reduces sexual pleasure generally. They explain why, too.

I dunno. Me and my wife have a pretty good time.

Although, she is a HAC.

 

[shira]

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...

And sexual partners of circumcised men have lower rates of cervical cancer.

Text

Overall prevalence of circumcision was 19.3%; circumcised men had higher levels of education and reported less frequent genital washing compared with uncircumcised men (40.5% vs 23.0%). In all groups, circumcised men had lower prevalence of HPV (5.5% vs 19.6%). With circumcision, the odds ratio (OR) for penile HPV was 0.37 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16 to 0.85) after adjusting for age, level of education, age at first intercourse, lifetime number of sexual partners, and frequency of genital washing after sex. This result persisted whether or not female partners had cervical HPV or cancer. Apart from being uncircumcised, the only other significant risk factor for penile HPV was the number of men?s sexual partners.

Female partners of circumcised men had a moderate but nonsignificant decrease in risk of cervical cancer (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.04). This inverse association was not changed by any of the women?s variables. Monogamous female partners of circumcised men at high risk of HPV (intercourse before age 17, six or more sexual partners, and history of contact with prostitutes) had a significant reduction in risk of cervical cancer (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.89). If both male and female partners were at low risk of infection, the women?s risk of cervical cancer was similar whether their partners were circumcised or uncircumcised (OR 1.61, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.02)

But let's not let saving lives get in the way of preserving ignorance.

 

[JKing106]

Being circumcised never stopped me from getting a nut. It obviously doesn't seem to stop all those dudes in porno movies either. I don't think it should be mandated, though. It should be the parent's choice.

 

[JD50]

A covered wagon looks silly, get cut please.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Citrix

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.

You could stand to have responded to my more recent reply.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: JKing106
Being circumcised never stopped me from getting a nut. It obviously doesn't seem to stop all those dudes in porno movies either. I don't think it should be mandated, though. It should be the parent's choice.

No one is talking about it being mandated Well, except the idiots who cant read