Slashdot Mirror

Now here is an explanation of why that study is simply worthless, why that "60%" number is meaningless, and how, even if it was absolutely correct, it would mean 56 circumcisions would be necessary to prevent a single case of HIV infection, and it would still fail to prevent another case -- whereas giving everyone condoms instead would have prevented both cases.

Speaking of epidemics, there is that HIV epidemic in Africa. And how does the Gates Foundation help? By promoting male genital mutilation, aka circumcision -- which is damn well proven to be completely useless to prevent HIV infections.

You're circumcised by your own admission as well, so you don't have any idea how it could be better either.

On the contrary! I know "before and after", if you catch my drift. I can tell you firsthand that circumcision severely decreases sexual pleasure. The "solution" turned out to be infinitely worse than the problem, which could have been fixed by more conservative means...

That fact so many people get circumcisions and have zero complications is just further evidence that it is a safe and useful procedure.

After you get circumcised, you have an incomplete penis with reduced sensitivity. Therefore, the complication rate is 100%, only the severity varies. Speaking of which, circumcision-related deaths are estimated at over a hundred per year in the USA alone, all swept under the rug.

If there was something out there that made sex better, doctors & businesses both would be scrambling to capitalize off of it.

On the contrary. Circumcisions are easy money for doctors. Not only the procedure itself, the tissue is sold to laboratories. The healthy thing to do is not performing circumcisions, but that is no easy money for anyone. Oh, here's a fun fact: the USA and Israel are about 5% of the world's population, yet they are about 50% of the world market for Viagra. Guess why.

"Harmless", my shiny metal ass...

It wasn't mutilation when I got circumcised.

It was. You are a mutilated man, and so am I, only I am not in denial about it.

It was a standard medical procedure needed for medical reasons which has several hygiene benefits too.

Lobotomy used to be a standard medical procedure too. And insulin shock therapy. And trepanning. And radiated water. And mercury ingestion.

[Citation required].

Have some: about how circumcision reduces pleasure, and does not help prevent HIV at all.

It wasn't mutilation when I got circumcised.

It was. You are a mutilated man, and so am I, only I am not in denial about it.

It was a standard medical procedure needed for medical reasons which has several hygiene benefits too.

Lobotomy used to be a standard medical procedure too. And insulin shock therapy. And trepanning. And radiated water. And mercury ingestion.

[Citation required].

Have some: about how circumcision reduces pleasure, and does not help prevent HIV at all.

Nope, the foreskin is the most sensitive part. Men in America think the glans is the most sensitive because it's the most sensitive part they have *left*.

A 2007 study tested the fine touch sensitivity of a group of circumcised men and a group of intact men. The study found that the foreskin has dense concentrations of nerve endings. Circumcision removes all of those nerves. Using data from that study, these diagrams show the areas of penile sensitivity. As you can see, the most sensitive parts are removed by circumcision:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html#sorrells

Yes, total garbage science.

What do Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, Swaziland, and Tanzania have in common? These are countries where the HIV rate is higher among circumcised men than among intact ones. So much for a protection that does not appear in real life numbers.

Science does confirm that circumcision is related to reduced sexual pleasure and other sexual difficulties. Hell, it's been known for centuries!

Also, why no mention of circumcision-related deaths?

Yes, total garbage science.

What do Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, Swaziland, and Tanzania have in common? These are countries where the HIV rate is higher among circumcised men than among intact ones. So much for a protection that does not appear in real life numbers.

Science does confirm that circumcision is related to reduced sexual pleasure and other sexual difficulties. Hell, it's been known for centuries!

Also, why no mention of circumcision-related deaths?

Yes, total garbage science.

What do Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, Swaziland, and Tanzania have in common? These are countries where the HIV rate is higher among circumcised men than among intact ones. So much for a protection that does not appear in real life numbers.

Science does confirm that circumcision is related to reduced sexual pleasure and other sexual difficulties. Hell, it's been known for centuries!

Also, why no mention of circumcision-related deaths?

Unhuh...

http://www.circumstitions.com/Utis.html

Ironically, all the 1982 paper did was quite casually note that "95% of the [male] infants [with UTI] were uncircumcised." without mentioning that virtually no babies born at that hospital (Parkland in Dallas, Texas) were circumcised. The paper went on: "All infants responded promptly to antimicrobial therapy."

20 out of of 100,157 (0.02%) circumcised boys got UTIs, compared with 88 out of 35,929 (0.244%) intact boys. If circumcising the 35,929 boys would have reduced the incidence from 0.244% to 0.02% (7 boys), the Number Needed to Treat is 35,929/(88-7) = 444 circumcisions to prevent one UTI.

Do you know what also causes UTI's? Bubble Bath.

UTI's are just common for 1st year babies. UTI's are also extremely easy to treat. I don't think it's worth mutilating a baby to reduce the possibility of an easily treatable condition that many babies will end up with regardless (girls and boys as well as circumcised boys also end up with UTI's).

Even delaying the procedure until a boy is likely to become sexually active (something like 13% at age 15), so probably a year or two before) would be preferable to making the choice for him.

Geekoid, from the way you argue I'm going to guess you're a circumcision fetishist.
http://www.circleaks.org/

No major health organisation (not even in Israel) recommends infant circumcision and the AAP has been criticised around the world.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/28/circumcision-the-cruellest-cut?newsfeed=true
http://www.circumcision.org/aap.htm
http://chhrp.org/index.php/news/childrens-health-human-rights-partnership-condemns-new-aap-policy-statement/

In the past the AAP has been deeply influenced by circumcision fetishists such as Edgar Schoen. He was chairman of the American Academy of Paediatrics task force on circumcision that published a report in 1989 recommending infant circumcision. He was not involved in 1999 when the policy position was reversed. It would appear the fetishists are back in though.

Most people don't even know what circumcision is so, what is circumcision?
http://www.noharmm.org/separated.htm

Lets have a look at some critical analysis of the African RCT's.
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22320006
http://www.circinfo.org/africa.html

I suggest everyone pay close attention to the bit in the first page about men who were lost from study and bear in mind that their HIV status is unknown. If the RCT's have any value at all we would see benefits in the real world. Just looking at developed Western nations, Europe has the lowest rate of MGM while the USA has the highest. The USA also has the highest rate of HIV infection.
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/where-circumcision-doesnt-prevent-hiv.html

Where is the benefit in the real world?

The reality is that the RCT's were not about combating HIV in Africa or anywhere, it is all about creating bogus 'scientific' evidence to bolster the practice of infant circumcision in the USA. Doctors can make a tidy extra income from it:
http://www.circumstitions.com/$$$.html

cosmetic and pharmaceutical companies purchase amputated foreskins and use then in the production of various products:
http://www.foreskin.org/f4sale.htm

You claim it's a lie that babies die from it:
http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

Now let's look at a timeline of the miraculous claims that have been made for circumcision since the puritans introduced it to America to prevent masturbation.
https://sites.google.com/site/completebaby/medicalization

If circumcision is so beneficial, why has it been necessary to make so many false claims about it? The current claims of HIV protection are just a rehash of the claims in 1855 and 1949 that it protects against Syphilis.

You also arrogantly claim there are no complications in later life. I am middle aged, I was mutilated as a baby and I now find that I have so little sensitivity that I can't maintain an erection during intercourse. Most of the time I can't even feel if I am inside a woman. It has nothing to do with health or lifestyle factors. I swim long distance ocean races a

Geekoid, from the way you argue I'm going to guess you're a circumcision fetishist.
http://www.circleaks.org/

No major health organisation (not even in Israel) recommends infant circumcision and the AAP has been criticised around the world.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/28/circumcision-the-cruellest-cut?newsfeed=true
http://www.circumcision.org/aap.htm
http://chhrp.org/index.php/news/childrens-health-human-rights-partnership-condemns-new-aap-policy-statement/

In the past the AAP has been deeply influenced by circumcision fetishists such as Edgar Schoen. He was chairman of the American Academy of Paediatrics task force on circumcision that published a report in 1989 recommending infant circumcision. He was not involved in 1999 when the policy position was reversed. It would appear the fetishists are back in though.

Most people don't even know what circumcision is so, what is circumcision?
http://www.noharmm.org/separated.htm

Lets have a look at some critical analysis of the African RCT's.
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22320006
http://www.circinfo.org/africa.html

I suggest everyone pay close attention to the bit in the first page about men who were lost from study and bear in mind that their HIV status is unknown. If the RCT's have any value at all we would see benefits in the real world. Just looking at developed Western nations, Europe has the lowest rate of MGM while the USA has the highest. The USA also has the highest rate of HIV infection.
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/where-circumcision-doesnt-prevent-hiv.html

Where is the benefit in the real world?

The reality is that the RCT's were not about combating HIV in Africa or anywhere, it is all about creating bogus 'scientific' evidence to bolster the practice of infant circumcision in the USA. Doctors can make a tidy extra income from it:
http://www.circumstitions.com/$$$.html

cosmetic and pharmaceutical companies purchase amputated foreskins and use then in the production of various products:
http://www.foreskin.org/f4sale.htm

You claim it's a lie that babies die from it:
http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

Now let's look at a timeline of the miraculous claims that have been made for circumcision since the puritans introduced it to America to prevent masturbation.
https://sites.google.com/site/completebaby/medicalization

If circumcision is so beneficial, why has it been necessary to make so many false claims about it? The current claims of HIV protection are just a rehash of the claims in 1855 and 1949 that it protects against Syphilis.

You also arrogantly claim there are no complications in later life. I am middle aged, I was mutilated as a baby and I now find that I have so little sensitivity that I can't maintain an erection during intercourse. Most of the time I can't even feel if I am inside a woman. It has nothing to do with health or lifestyle factors. I swim long distance ocean races a

Geekoid, from the way you argue I'm going to guess you're a circumcision fetishist.
http://www.circleaks.org/

No major health organisation (not even in Israel) recommends infant circumcision and the AAP has been criticised around the world.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/28/circumcision-the-cruellest-cut?newsfeed=true
http://www.circumcision.org/aap.htm
http://chhrp.org/index.php/news/childrens-health-human-rights-partnership-condemns-new-aap-policy-statement/

In the past the AAP has been deeply influenced by circumcision fetishists such as Edgar Schoen. He was chairman of the American Academy of Paediatrics task force on circumcision that published a report in 1989 recommending infant circumcision. He was not involved in 1999 when the policy position was reversed. It would appear the fetishists are back in though.

Most people don't even know what circumcision is so, what is circumcision?
http://www.noharmm.org/separated.htm

Lets have a look at some critical analysis of the African RCT's.
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22320006
http://www.circinfo.org/africa.html

I suggest everyone pay close attention to the bit in the first page about men who were lost from study and bear in mind that their HIV status is unknown. If the RCT's have any value at all we would see benefits in the real world. Just looking at developed Western nations, Europe has the lowest rate of MGM while the USA has the highest. The USA also has the highest rate of HIV infection.
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/where-circumcision-doesnt-prevent-hiv.html

Where is the benefit in the real world?

The reality is that the RCT's were not about combating HIV in Africa or anywhere, it is all about creating bogus 'scientific' evidence to bolster the practice of infant circumcision in the USA. Doctors can make a tidy extra income from it:
http://www.circumstitions.com/$$$.html

cosmetic and pharmaceutical companies purchase amputated foreskins and use then in the production of various products:
http://www.foreskin.org/f4sale.htm

You claim it's a lie that babies die from it:
http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

Now let's look at a timeline of the miraculous claims that have been made for circumcision since the puritans introduced it to America to prevent masturbation.
https://sites.google.com/site/completebaby/medicalization

If circumcision is so beneficial, why has it been necessary to make so many false claims about it? The current claims of HIV protection are just a rehash of the claims in 1855 and 1949 that it protects against Syphilis.

You also arrogantly claim there are no complications in later life. I am middle aged, I was mutilated as a baby and I now find that I have so little sensitivity that I can't maintain an erection during intercourse. Most of the time I can't even feel if I am inside a woman. It has nothing to do with health or lifestyle factors. I swim long distance ocean races a

Geekoid, from the way you argue I'm going to guess you're a circumcision fetishist.
http://www.circleaks.org/

No major health organisation (not even in Israel) recommends infant circumcision and the AAP has been criticised around the world.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/28/circumcision-the-cruellest-cut?newsfeed=true
http://www.circumcision.org/aap.htm
http://chhrp.org/index.php/news/childrens-health-human-rights-partnership-condemns-new-aap-policy-statement/

In the past the AAP has been deeply influenced by circumcision fetishists such as Edgar Schoen. He was chairman of the American Academy of Paediatrics task force on circumcision that published a report in 1989 recommending infant circumcision. He was not involved in 1999 when the policy position was reversed. It would appear the fetishists are back in though.

Most people don't even know what circumcision is so, what is circumcision?
http://www.noharmm.org/separated.htm

Lets have a look at some critical analysis of the African RCT's.
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22320006
http://www.circinfo.org/africa.html

I suggest everyone pay close attention to the bit in the first page about men who were lost from study and bear in mind that their HIV status is unknown. If the RCT's have any value at all we would see benefits in the real world. Just looking at developed Western nations, Europe has the lowest rate of MGM while the USA has the highest. The USA also has the highest rate of HIV infection.
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/where-circumcision-doesnt-prevent-hiv.html

Where is the benefit in the real world?

The reality is that the RCT's were not about combating HIV in Africa or anywhere, it is all about creating bogus 'scientific' evidence to bolster the practice of infant circumcision in the USA. Doctors can make a tidy extra income from it:
http://www.circumstitions.com/$$$.html

cosmetic and pharmaceutical companies purchase amputated foreskins and use then in the production of various products:
http://www.foreskin.org/f4sale.htm

You claim it's a lie that babies die from it:
http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

Now let's look at a timeline of the miraculous claims that have been made for circumcision since the puritans introduced it to America to prevent masturbation.
https://sites.google.com/site/completebaby/medicalization

If circumcision is so beneficial, why has it been necessary to make so many false claims about it? The current claims of HIV protection are just a rehash of the claims in 1855 and 1949 that it protects against Syphilis.

You also arrogantly claim there are no complications in later life. I am middle aged, I was mutilated as a baby and I now find that I have so little sensitivity that I can't maintain an erection during intercourse. Most of the time I can't even feel if I am inside a woman. It has nothing to do with health or lifestyle factors. I swim long distance ocean races a

Mod this gentleman UP please people.
I too have damaged genetalia due to a circumcision that I didn't want, had no say in and didn't need, fortunately the damage isn't too severe in my case. (turkey neck)

Please take a look at this, it's not for the squeemish, nor is it work safe.
http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html
That is a rare occurance just like myself and wbr1, however NONE of them needed to fucking well occur in the first place.

Oh and can I just say, politically correct or not - women do not have any say in this topic of discussion, NONE, NADA, their opinion is utterly worthless on this topic - be it for or against. I've seen too many articles on this topic with facebook or twitter posts by women who think they have a right to comment on it.
The one I saw yesterday which got me fired up by a woman "your son, your decision" ugh.

This practice should be banned.

Pseudoscience, you mean. Circumcision is not connected with cancer prevention at all. On the other hand, this is a procedure that destroys half the penile skin (it is double-layered, keep in mind), and more precisely its most erotically sensitive bits , so it's no surprise that it is clearly linked to erectile dysfunction . Oh, how about over a hundred baby deaths , every year, in the USA alone, or life-lasting psychological effects ?

As a mutilated man, I'd fully support a return to Hadrian's law: a total ban, under penalty of death. Stern, but fair!

I guess you would stop the Muslims, Jews and others who practice it. Close to a million people, n those groups.

Pseudoscience, you mean. Circumcision is not connected with cancer prevention at all. On the other hand, this is a procedure that destroys half the penile skin (it is double-layered, keep in mind), and more precisely its most erotically sensitive bits , so it's no surprise that it is clearly linked to erectile dysfunction . Oh, how about over a hundred baby deaths , every year, in the USA alone, or life-lasting psychological effects ?

As a mutilated man, I'd fully support a return to Hadrian's law: a total ban, under penalty of death. Stern, but fair!

I guess you would stop the Muslims, Jews and others who practice it. Close to a million people, n those groups.

Pseudoscience, you mean. Circumcision is not connected with cancer prevention at all. On the other hand, this is a procedure that destroys half the penile skin (it is double-layered, keep in mind), and more precisely its most erotically sensitive bits , so it's no surprise that it is clearly linked to erectile dysfunction . Oh, how about over a hundred baby deaths , every year, in the USA alone, or life-lasting psychological effects ?

As a mutilated man, I'd fully support a return to Hadrian's law: a total ban, under penalty of death. Stern, but fair!

I guess you would stop the Muslims, Jews and others who practice it. Close to a million people, n those groups.

Pseudoscience, you mean. Circumcision is not connected with cancer prevention at all. On the other hand, this is a procedure that destroys half the penile skin (it is double-layered, keep in mind), and more precisely its most erotically sensitive bits , so it's no surprise that it is clearly linked to erectile dysfunction . Oh, how about over a hundred baby deaths , every year, in the USA alone, or life-lasting psychological effects ?

As a mutilated man, I'd fully support a return to Hadrian's law: a total ban, under penalty of death. Stern, but fair!

I guess you would stop the Muslims, Jews and others who practice it. Close to a million people, n those groups.

Pseudoscience, you mean. Circumcision is not connected with cancer prevention at all. On the other hand, this is a procedure that destroys half the penile skin (it is double-layered, keep in mind), and more precisely its most erotically sensitive bits , so it's no surprise that it is clearly linked to erectile dysfunction . Oh, how about over a hundred baby deaths , every year, in the USA alone, or life-lasting psychological effects ?

As a mutilated man, I'd fully support a return to Hadrian's law: a total ban, under penalty of death. Stern, but fair!

just an fyi: The Jewish reasons for circumcision stems from a God given commandment and has to do with being closer to God and distance us humans from our animalistic tendencies. It is not about being healthy or any pseudoscience (other than the fact that its a religious commandment). And if there is medical evidence to prove that ones offspring would die from a circumcision the child is exempt from getting one.

Pseudoscience, you mean. Circumcision is not connected with cancer prevention at all. On the other hand, this is a procedure that destroys half the penile skin (it is double-layered, keep in mind), and more precisely its most erotically sensitive bits , so it's no surprise that it is clearly linked to erectile dysfunction . Oh, how about over a hundred baby deaths , every year, in the USA alone, or life-lasting psychological effects ?

As a mutilated man, I'd fully support a return to Hadrian's law: a total ban, under penalty of death. Stern, but fair!

just an fyi: The Jewish reasons for circumcision stems from a God given commandment and has to do with being closer to God and distance us humans from our animalistic tendencies. It is not about being healthy or any pseudoscience (other than the fact that its a religious commandment). And if there is medical evidence to prove that ones offspring would die from a circumcision the child is exempt from getting one.

Pseudoscience, you mean. Circumcision is not connected with cancer prevention at all. On the other hand, this is a procedure that destroys half the penile skin (it is double-layered, keep in mind), and more precisely its most erotically sensitive bits , so it's no surprise that it is clearly linked to erectile dysfunction . Oh, how about over a hundred baby deaths , every year, in the USA alone, or life-lasting psychological effects ?

As a mutilated man, I'd fully support a return to Hadrian's law: a total ban, under penalty of death. Stern, but fair!

just an fyi: The Jewish reasons for circumcision stems from a God given commandment and has to do with being closer to God and distance us humans from our animalistic tendencies. It is not about being healthy or any pseudoscience (other than the fact that its a religious commandment). And if there is medical evidence to prove that ones offspring would die from a circumcision the child is exempt from getting one.

Pseudoscience, you mean. Circumcision is not connected with cancer prevention at all. On the other hand, this is a procedure that destroys half the penile skin (it is double-layered, keep in mind), and more precisely its most erotically sensitive bits , so it's no surprise that it is clearly linked to erectile dysfunction . Oh, how about over a hundred baby deaths , every year, in the USA alone, or life-lasting psychological effects ?

As a mutilated man, I'd fully support a return to Hadrian's law: a total ban, under penalty of death. Stern, but fair!

just an fyi: The Jewish reasons for circumcision stems from a God given commandment and has to do with being closer to God and distance us humans from our animalistic tendencies. It is not about being healthy or any pseudoscience (other than the fact that its a religious commandment). And if there is medical evidence to prove that ones offspring would die from a circumcision the child is exempt from getting one.

Not really. It would be more akin to removing the entire head of the penis rather than just the foreskin.

Not all forms of female genital cutting involve clitoridectomy; some of them are basically the same as, or even less invasive than male circumcision. But all of them are illegal in any civilized nation. If all people are supposed to have equal rights, male cutting is a crime just the same.

Circumcision has at least some benefit

Nope. Fanatics and mutilation fetishists will keep tossing that "benefits" bullshit around, but do not believe them. The "cure looking for a disease" has no confirmed discernible benefit. Every study in that direction is found to be heavily flawed. Real life numbers tell otherwise - for example, in several African countries, HIV rates are higher among circumcised men. So, where's that magical protection it was supposed to provide?

The -only- purpose for female castration is to reduce their sexual pleasure to a low enough level that they won't feel the desire to have sex with men.

Oh, did you really think the very purpose of circumcision is not reducing pleasure for everyone?

Pseudoscience, you mean. Circumcision is not connected with cancer prevention at all. On the other hand, this is a procedure that destroys half the penile skin (it is double-layered, keep in mind), and more precisely its most erotically sensitive bits , so it's no surprise that it is clearly linked to erectile dysfunction . Oh, how about over a hundred baby deaths , every year, in the USA alone, or life-lasting psychological effects ?

As a mutilated man, I'd fully support a return to Hadrian's law: a total ban, under penalty of death. Stern, but fair!

Pseudoscience, you mean. Circumcision is not connected with cancer prevention at all. On the other hand, this is a procedure that destroys half the penile skin (it is double-layered, keep in mind), and more precisely its most erotically sensitive bits , so it's no surprise that it is clearly linked to erectile dysfunction . Oh, how about over a hundred baby deaths , every year, in the USA alone, or life-lasting psychological effects ?

As a mutilated man, I'd fully support a return to Hadrian's law: a total ban, under penalty of death. Stern, but fair!

Pseudoscience, you mean. Circumcision is not connected with cancer prevention at all. On the other hand, this is a procedure that destroys half the penile skin (it is double-layered, keep in mind), and more precisely its most erotically sensitive bits , so it's no surprise that it is clearly linked to erectile dysfunction . Oh, how about over a hundred baby deaths , every year, in the USA alone, or life-lasting psychological effects ?

As a mutilated man, I'd fully support a return to Hadrian's law: a total ban, under penalty of death. Stern, but fair!

Pseudoscience, you mean. Circumcision is not connected with cancer prevention at all. On the other hand, this is a procedure that destroys half the penile skin (it is double-layered, keep in mind), and more precisely its most erotically sensitive bits , so it's no surprise that it is clearly linked to erectile dysfunction . Oh, how about over a hundred baby deaths , every year, in the USA alone, or life-lasting psychological effects ?

As a mutilated man, I'd fully support a return to Hadrian's law: a total ban, under penalty of death. Stern, but fair!

Incorrect and stupid response. Ranting is more than justified on an cosmetic UN-NECESSARY medical procedure being inflicted on a person incapable of defending themselves. There are no 'risks' on both sides, it's plain FACT that 99.99% of circumcisions are simply not required. Learn about the subject, don't make stupid posts as if you've got the sensible, sitting in the middle, adult angle on this. http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched4ga.html

Do some reading.

Just a general note that it doesn't help to cite from a website that has an agenda. Just saying. It'd be better to cite medical journals or the like. I immediately called bullshit on a website like this one and passed over it whether it's accurate or not since it's clearly biased.

Incorrect and stupid response.
Ranting is more than justified on an cosmetic UN-NECESSARY medical procedure being inflicted on a person incapable of defending themselves.
There are no 'risks' on both sides, it's plain FACT that 99.99% of circumcisions are simply not required.
Learn about the subject, don't make stupid posts as if you've got the sensible, sitting in the middle, adult angle on this.
http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched4ga.html

Do some reading.

Ooooh do I spend my mod points to moderate this guy up or do I reply to him?!?

Your harsh post will no doubt have critics, not just religious ones too! There are 'cut men' who have no medical problems who will defend circumcision simply because "hey I have that, how dare you mock my penis!?"

As someone who DOES have penis damage thanks to an UN-NECESSARY operation that I didn't opt in to, I'd like to bring everyones attention to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html - NOT FOR THE SQUEEMISH
Take note of "Necrotising fasciitis (Galloping gangrene)"

Just because YOUR circumcision didn't fuck up, that doesn't change the fact that besides antiquated, stupid fucking reasons, literally 99.99% of circumcisions are UN-NECESSARY.

If I've convinced one, just one man or woman today, to fucking think twice before dicing up their future childs junk, then I've done my job.

I'm fed up with tribes who circumcise infant girls.

Funny, isn't the US one of the main countries the practice penis mutilation on infant boys ?!?

Evidence suggests that there is no significant reduction in sensation.

Incorrect.

Oh, I'm so glad you cited the works of a recipient of a Bachelor of Arts degree as scientific evidence! That just clears everything up. Her background in poetry or some other basket-weaving crap makes her well-suited to statistical analysis.

She can't even differentiate a fucking polynomial and you're citing her as a reference in a scientific discussion?

Once again, the anti-circ whackos lose credibility.

Evidence suggests that there is no significant reduction in sensation.

Incorrect.

and reduced chance of losing the whole damned thing to cancer later in life

You are incredibly stupid if you believe you'll get penis cancer by not being circumcised.

Ditto to anybody who upmodded you. I mean, really. Smack yourself upside the head for being so gullible to believe this. The evidence. Also: why would you possibly believe that having an extra piece of skin would cause cancer?

Because you're stupid and gullible, that's why. Also: the first person to prove that cutting of the skin of the end of the penis decreases the likelyhood of cancer would probably win the nobel prize for cancer research.

most doctors call circumcision a health related choice

This has no basis in reality. Circumcision rates are now at the lowest point ever in the history of the US - and are continuing to fall. It's at just over 55% in the entire US - and down to almost 30% in western states.

Seems a pretty fair trade to me.

Of *course* you don't see the problem - because you have no idea what you lost. The most sensitive nerve cluster in the male body is at the base of the foreskin - and you don't have it. You're just as stupid as the blind parents who want to deliberately conceive a blind child.

Circumcision is child abuse. Period.

Did you know circumcision itself can kill?

You missed, with the "back off unless you have a double-blind study bit. Insistence on a double blind study is not the demonstration of a rational scientific approach to the issue that it might at first appear. In fact, you have it upside down, in this case. Demanding a double-blind study to support action to *stop* an optional surgical removal of an otherwise healthy body part violates the precautionary principle for example. It's a non-controversial argument to claim that cutting off part of a healthy body for religious, cultural, or other non-medical reasons, without evidence that this *does not* cause harm is at the very least a violation of the precautionary principle.

There also considerable evidence that the practice does cause actual harm, greater in some cases than in others.

Male circumcision - see the harm to get a balanced picture
Circumcision Complications

Consider another example. Cigarettes are full of substances which cause cancer in laboratory rats. Where are the double blind studies supporting the claim that cigarette smoking causes cancer in people? Well, there really aren't any, because it isn't ethical to conduct these types of studies which would require exposing a group of human volunteers to known or suspected carcinogens. There are other ways to get reasonably reliable data on which to base public policy, however.

The onus in the case of physical mutilation (circumcision of either gender certainly qualifies) should be on those doing the mutilating of the defenseless child. There are no double blind studies which demonstrate that we have not deprived our children of the most sensitive part of their anatomy, and that we haven't permanently deprived them of maximum sexual enjoyment. (All those folk who cry out on any political issue, Think of the children! forget to consider or care about what happens if they mange to make it to adulthood.) With respect to circumcision, however, there are recent studies which indicate that male circumcision might reduce the spread of AIDS. The evidence isn't conclusive, but it does complicate the issue of male circumcision.

Although it might seem clear that female genital mutilation is rather more dramatically barbaric, male circumcision is by no means a harmless practice. Perhaps not all the patients are harmed, but some are undoubtedly harmed, irrevocably.

Finally, it's worth noting that although the extent of the legal and human rights of children remain the subject of debate, it's clear that most modern democratic societies at least, agree that children have some rights. You may be the parent of YOUR children, but the system of laws governing your country almost certainly limit what you may do to them. You certainly would do hard time, and or have the children taken away, in any western democray for amputating part of their nose or their ear or their hand or foot. Why not for amputating part of their penis?

Deaths? Not that many, but they happen. Apparently more than 1 per year on average in the US.

http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

How many deaths can you name because of lack of circumcision?

To both your question and mine, the answer is, very few. The real question is, Why do an invasive medical procedure without any real reasons for it? If the situation arises where someone needs a circumcision for medical reasons, do it then. Arguing for circumcision of infants for medical reasons is like arguing for the removal of the appendix in infants.

You need professional help, mutilator. I mean what is it with you people and circumcision? Its like the crazed muslims and their hatred for women or something. Go back to the middle ages where you belong please. Irritation aside, you made a good and well informed post besides that, which I found interesting. But I'd thank you to get off the slicing little boys penises bandwagon.

The extraordinary history of circumcision as a panaceaa, and before that as a rite, strongly suggest that latter-day claims of prophylaxis should be regarded with a sceptical, if not jaundiced, eye. Few if any men can be truly neutral about circumcision. The temptation to justify what was done to oneself seems almost irresistible.

The extraordinary history of circumcision as a panaceaa, and before that as a rite, strongly suggest that latter-day claims of prophylaxis should be regarded with a sceptical, if not jaundiced, eye. Few if any men can be truly neutral about circumcision. The temptation to justify what was done to oneself seems almost irresistible.

According to Roman Catholic doctrine, you are not supposed to mutilate your body unless you explicitly need it for health reasons, or to benefit another without prejudice of your health.

Read this for more info. Circumcision used to be strictly forbidden according to canon. Only in 1952 was it considered permissible but only for health reasons.

For the record --- Plural of penis is penes ...

He's right
http://www.circumstitions.com/Glossary.html
penes
L. plural of penis. Penises is clear; peni and penii would be the plurals of "penus" and "penius".