• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

POll: Did you circumcise your son, if he was born in the past 5 years?

Page 28 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: SammyJr
Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Why is it that the people who are really enthusiastic about this debate are the uncircumcised guys? Seriously, it's pathetic. You're all coming off as insecure kids who are trying in vain to prove something. It's not working.
Click to expand...

I'm cut and I think newborn circumcision is wrong.

Read back through the thread. There are a lot of cut guys that are at least as insecure and create massive posts justifying how their cut dick gives them great advantages against disease and how it is lusted after by all women everywhere.
Click to expand...

I actually think it is not 100% one way or the other. It is more like 51%/49%. As with most things, I think the people on either extreme are wrong. I also think that anyone who attacks someone like me, who is 51% one way, are missing the boat because they assume I am 100% that way.

I see the arguments for and against. There just are a couple reasons that have pushed me one way over the other.

MotionMan
 
Originally posted by: MotionMan
Originally posted by: SammyJr
Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Why is it that the people who are really enthusiastic about this debate are the uncircumcised guys? Seriously, it's pathetic. You're all coming off as insecure kids who are trying in vain to prove something. It's not working.
Click to expand...

I'm cut and I think newborn circumcision is wrong.

Read back through the thread. There are a lot of cut guys that are at least as insecure and create massive posts justifying how their cut dick gives them great advantages against disease and how it is lusted after by all women everywhere.
Click to expand...

I actually think it is not 100% one way or the other. It is more like 51%/49%. As with most things, I think the people on either extreme are wrong. I also think that anyone who attacks someone like me, who is 51% one way, are missing the boat because they assume I am 100% that way.

I see the arguments for and against. There just are a couple reasons that have pushed me one way over the other.

MotionMan
Click to expand...


Yep same here. I looked into both and could not find anything going 1 way or the other. My wife said just leave it al-natural and if need be we would cut later (medical reason) or if he decides when he is an adult.

Out of all the stuff I have had to decide as a new dad, this was way down on the list.

Oh and I am cut my son, 5 months this week, is not and I don;t care one way or the other.

 
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
You seem way too emotionally invested in this discussion. It's not really a big deal.

And how can the circumcised guys say that guys who were circumcised shortly after birth are lacking feeling? If they've never experienced it the other way they're just talking out of their ass.

Why is it that the people who are really enthusiastic about this debate are the uncircumcised guys? Seriously, it's pathetic. You're all coming off as insecure kids who are trying in vain to prove something. It's not working.
Click to expand...
Emotionally invested? You seem to be reading into this way too much.

Lacking feeling - it's simple deduction. If you remove a lot of nerves which generate feeling and sensation, then it would stand to reason that the sensation experienced is greatly reduced over what it could have been.
You may as well use a person who is blind from birth as an example. He doesn't know what sight is, so he doesn't know any other way of experiencing the world. But there is clear evidence to support that he is indeed missing something substantial.

Also, if you imply that I am uncut, well, you're incorrect.



 
Originally posted by: MotionMan
Originally posted by: SammyJr
Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Why is it that the people who are really enthusiastic about this debate are the uncircumcised guys? Seriously, it's pathetic. You're all coming off as insecure kids who are trying in vain to prove something. It's not working.
Click to expand...

I'm cut and I think newborn circumcision is wrong.

Read back through the thread. There are a lot of cut guys that are at least as insecure and create massive posts justifying how their cut dick gives them great advantages against disease and how it is lusted after by all women everywhere.
Click to expand...

I actually think it is not 100% one way or the other. It is more like 51%/49%. As with most things, I think the people on either extreme are wrong. I also think that anyone who attacks someone like me, who is 51% one way, are missing the boat because they assume I am 100% that way.

I see the arguments for and against. There just are a couple reasons that have pushed me one way over the other.
Click to expand...

I'm just against having it done to newborns and children. Adults can do whatever they want. I don't think that makes me an extremist, just someone who treats circumcision like any other cosmetic surgery.
 
Originally posted by: adlep
I really don't get why some people have problem with my eyelid arguments in spite of me trying to explain my position point by point...

All I hear is: Your argument is terrible, because it is terrible.

:frown:

Both the foreskin and eyelid have a simple biological function: To protect a sensitive organ of man's body against "too much" of a stimuli from the environment.
Why then it is such a "cool" thing to do to remove one part of a body designed to PROTECT human's private parts?

I understand the concept of an underwear, but at the same token you don't need eyelids either - you can replace them with eye drops and a pair of cool looking pair of Ray Bans polarized sunglasses (you know ' the chicks" also digg cool sunglasses)...
Click to expand...

It's quite simple: is there EVER a benefit to removing someone's eyelids?
 
Originally posted by: MotionMan
Originally posted by: BUTCH1
Originally posted by: MotionMan
Are people who are against circumcision against removing "extra" teeth in kids mouths (because their mouths are "too small")?

How about teeth braces for kids?

MotionMan
Click to expand...

You keep trying to make analogies that make no sense, braces serve a purpose to correct a problem where circumcision is really just cosmetic and nothing more. It's part of American culture but does it solve any real medical problem??...NO! And don't even bring up the cleanliness issue, if you have access to hot water and soap it's a non issue, period..
Click to expand...

Why are crooked teeth a problem? The English seem to do fine without braces. 😉

Aren't braces, in many cases, simply for aesthetics? And the removal of non-infected wisdom teeth? And the removal of teeth because your mouth is "too small"?

When I was a minor, I had permanent teeth removed and braces put on against my will. How is that different than circumcision?

MotionMan
Click to expand...

I had braces when I was younger, had some rather ridiculous teeth before that. the argument was that it would drastically reduce my headaches, which were common at the time. Well, they probably did reduce the frequency of headaches, but once the braces were off and I was given a retainer (actually had retainer many years before--never a problem with it and I rarely took it out), the discomfort was so great that I woke up one night and tossed it into the corner...because I could.

almost 15 years later, I can occasionally feel my teeth reverting back to their old position...maybe.

Never had my wisdom teeth out, never needed it. While I think that in my case there likely is a legit argument for having braces (hell, some people get their jaws shattered and realigned to fix overbites and such), I feel that most do it for cosmetic reasons.

Also, an important thing to consider is that many, many infections originate in the mouth, through the gums. Staph infections are notorious for this. While it's easy for most to see dentists, orthodontists....maybe even periodontists as scammers for their high prices and largely cosmetic-based practice, there is a good bit of legit work that they do.
 
Originally posted by: OCNewbie
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
How could you miss such a basic point so completely?

Let me dumb it down to a level that even you can understand:

If circumcised guys still wish they could hold out longer and there are even numbing lotions (and condoms that come with it) to reduce the sensitivity so they can, then why would you claim that circumcised guys aren't sensitive enough?
Click to expand...

"Holding out longer" isn't all about sensitivity. Circumcised guys wanting to hold out longer isn't necessarily proof, and doesn't even suggest that their problems "holding out" have anything to do with how sensitive they are or aren't. Let's assume physical sensation is identical... would you have trouble holding out longer with a swimsuit model or Rosie O'Donnell? C'mon... just picture it =)
Click to expand...

why the hell would you screw rosie o'donnell in the first place? lol


lol nvm 🙂
 
Originally posted by: lyssword
Maybe circumcision doesn't really protect against hiv after all, the women still get hiv with circumcised partners.
Click to expand...

or maybe your link says it's worth it anyway.

"The outcome was disappointing because circumcision has been shown to drastically reduce infection rates in men. But the researchers said that wide-scale circumcision is so effective in protecting men that [it] will still likely benefit women indirectly by reducing circulation of the virus in general."
 
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: lyssword
Maybe circumcision doesn't really protect against hiv after all, the women still get hiv with circumcised partners.
Click to expand...

or maybe your link says it's worth it anyway.

"The outcome was disappointing because circumcision has been shown to drastically reduce infection rates in men. But the researchers said that wide-scale circumcision is so effective in protecting men that [it] will still likely benefit women indirectly by reducing circulation of the virus in general."
Click to expand...

experts say HIV-positive men should still be offered circumcision, but also warned to use condoms.
Click to expand...

So if you have to wear a rubber anyway, what's the point?

This is typical circumcision pusher crap. They admit their beloved procedure doesn't work all that well but still recommend you get it.
 
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Originally posted by: OCguy
http://www.banderasnews.com/0507/hb-circumcision.htm
Click to expand...

Women with boob jobs have a higher rate of STDs. So do fake boobs cause STDs?
Click to expand...

Originally posted by: lyssword
Maybe circumcision doesn't really protect against hiv after all, the women still get hiv with circumcised partners.
Click to expand...





Apparently the CDC seems to feel strongly about this.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,541970,00.html
 
Originally posted by: OCguy
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Originally posted by: OCguy
http://www.banderasnews.com/0507/hb-circumcision.htm
Click to expand...

Women with boob jobs have a higher rate of STDs. So do fake boobs cause STDs?
Click to expand...

Originally posted by: lyssword
Maybe circumcision doesn't really protect against hiv after all, the women still get hiv with circumcised partners.
Click to expand...





Apparently the CDC seems to feel strongly about this.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,541970,00.html
Click to expand...

Interesting development...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top