to circumsize or not to circumsize

[racrguy]

We do, but cutting loose skin is a lot more easier to do when you are a baby than procrastinating 10 -20 years later.

You aren't picking up what I'm putting down. If an appendix has shown the ability to get infected, and possibly kill someone, why not remove it since it's not needed? It's the same argument you're making.

[stevo]

I've already been over that. Read the thread pl0x.

Yeah, you keep saying that, except most of the shit you posted are just opinions and have a counter argument by just as many doctors and scientists.

Just because you keep parroting the same claims doesn't make them factual.

Stevo

[racrguy]

Yeah, you keep saying that, except most of the shit you posted are just opinions and have a counter argument by just as many doctors and scientists.

Just because you keep parroting the same claims doesn't make them factual.

Stevo

Except you make the folly of assuming that I don't have evidence proving that there are a large number of nerve endings in foreskin, or studies that show a negative correlation to circumcision. Anything else to add?

[347Mike]

Who gives a shit how many nerve endings are in it. You say that as if without it no one would be able to catch a boner........ I highly doubt if there were anything major aside of surgery shortly after a circumsicion you would have 90% of the board with one...

[racrguy]

Who gives a shit how many nerve endings are in it. You say that as if without it no one would be able to catch a boner........

I've never made it sound like they can't get a boner, I've merely said that there is lessened sexual pleasure, because you've got a lot of nerve endings missing.

I highly doubt if there were anything major aside of surgery shortly after a circumsicion you would have 90% of the board with one...

Again, appealing to common practice. "Just because everyone else does it, it's right, and I'm going to do it too."

[CJ-95GT]

The only unbiased opinon you should listen to is from those who got circumsized later on in their lives. All the other opinions don't matter since they don't want to hear that their junk is inferior to someone elses.

[stevo]

Except you make the folly of assuming that I don't have evidence proving that there are a large number of nerve endings in foreskin, or studies that show a negative correlation to circumcision. Anything else to add?

What evidence? Are you describing the things you have repeated over and over? Yeah, like I said, for every OPINION that you have posted, there is as much if not more medical and scientifically evidence to counter it.

All you have is the poor ol' missing 10,000 nerve endings. Keep parroting it, as that is your only leg to stand on in this discussion.

Oh yeah, while we are at it, you must have missed the cancer reduction benefits of circumcision:

A circumcised male is virtually risk-free for penile cancer. However, for the uncircumcised male the chances of coming down with penile cancer are fewer than one in 100,000. Studies have also shown that women are at a greater risk of cervical cancer with an uncircumcised male partner. Another advantage to being circumcised as a baby is that an average of 4% of all uncircumcised males will have to undergo circumcision later in life due to inflammation of the foreskin or the foreskin adhering to the tip of the penis.

Stevo

[Taylor]

Hey, fix your quote, I didn't say that! lol

Phone quoting FTL.

[Forever_frost]

A circumcised male is virtually risk-free for penile cancer. However, for the uncircumcised male the chances of coming down with penile cancer are fewer than one in 100,000. Studies have also shown that women are at a greater risk of cervical cancer with an uncircumcised male partner. Another advantage to being circumcised as a baby is that an average of 4% of all uncircumcised males will have to undergo circumcision later in life due to inflammation of the foreskin or the foreskin adhering to the tip of the penis.


Check. Mate

[racrguy]

What evidence? Are you describing the things you have repeated over and over? Yeah, like I said, for every OPINION that you have posted, there is as much if not more medical and scientifically evidence to counter it.

All you have is the poor ol' missing 10,000 nerve endings. Keep parroting it, as that is your only leg to stand on in this discussion.

Oh yeah, while we are at it, you must have missed the cancer reduction benefits of circumcision:

A circumcised male is virtually risk-free for penile cancer. However, for the uncircumcised male the chances of coming down with penile cancer are fewer than one in 100,000.
1 in 100,000 isn't virtually risk free? Last I checked .0001% is virtually 0%
Studies have also shown that women are at a greater risk of cervical cancer with an uncircumcised male partner.
Studies may show that. Science, however, shows that HPV is the primary cause of cervical cancer. HPV, human papillomavirus, is found in an estimated 20 million people, with 6 million more added every year, or 50% of sexually active individuals, and does not have a preference on the circumcision issue. You see, this is why you fact check.

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/InfectiousAgents/HPV/what-women-should-know-about-cervix-cancer-and-hpv

http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm

Another advantage to being circumcised as a baby is that an average of 4% of all uncircumcised males will have to undergo circumcision later in life due to inflammation of the foreskin or the foreskin adhering to the tip of the penis.
Because 4% of dudes can't wash their junk properly, it's best to just cut it off everyone.

Stevo

That's completely ignoring the fact that your claim is unsourced.


Erectile function and penile sensation worse after circumcision: http://www.circs.org/index.php/Library/Fink

Ejaculation problems after circumcision: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/conten...yr104.abstract

The foreskin is more than just skin; it is a complex, highly mobile, and beautifully engineered organ composed of an intricate web of blood vessels, muscle, and nerves. In fact, the foreskin contains about 240 feet of nerve fibers and tens of thousands of specialized erotogenic nerve endings of various types, which can feel the slightest pressure, the lightest touch, the smallest motion, the subtlest changes in temperature, and the finest gradations in texture

http://mensightmagazine.com/Articles...laboutcirc.htm Authored by Paul M. Fleiss, M.D. and Frederick M. Hodges, D. Phil.

Check. Mate

Only if you take what's said without the least bit of skepticism and don't bother to fact check.

[YALE]

tl;dr.

[idrivea4banger]

Really, yall are bitching over foreskin??

[Treasure Chest]

A circumcised male is virtually risk-free for penile cancer. However, for the uncircumcised male the chances of coming down with penile cancer are fewer than one in 100,000. Studies have also shown that women are at a greater risk of cervical cancer with an uncircumcised male partner. Another advantage to being circumcised as a baby is that an average of 4% of all uncircumcised males will have to undergo circumcision later in life due to inflammation of the foreskin or the foreskin adhering to the tip of the penis.


Check. Mate

Look up the statistics for penile cancer. 1 in 100,000. It accounts for less than 1% of cancer diagnosis. More men are diagnosed and die of breast cancer than penile cancer, but no one suggests infant mastectomy. 1 in 1,000 will develop male breast cancer. A man's chances of developing testicular cancer is 1 in 270, but I'm pretty sure no one wants to cut their sons balls off at birth.

Also, most cervical cancers are caused by HPV strains. Like the HIV debate, circumcision isn't a replacement for condom usage...and neither is the guardasil vaccine for teenaged girls.

That condition that affects 4% of uncircumcised males is phimosis, the reason that most of you who've never seen an intact penis think it looks like a dog dick.

So basically 4% of men in the world have a medical necessity for circumcision, and the rest are carrying on an archaic tradition so their sons will look like daddy, and justify it with statistics that are ridiculously low, in the grand scheme of things.

[racrguy]

Really, yall are bitching over foreskin??

I admit, it is a bit one sided. Only one side has facts, the other side, judging by what's been posted, is going off speculation and tradition.

[TENGRAM]

I can't believe anyone is even bothering with medical reasons. The bottom line is that most women prefer them snipped. Most men have theirs snipped. Yes, it's shallow, aesthetic BS, but that is the world we live in. Don't think so? You be the first one to date a woman with under arm hair.