 |
Should I circumcize my son?
This poll is closed. |
| Yes, of course. |
   |
20 |
25.32% |
| No, why would you? |
   |
51 |
64.56% |
| Try it on a banana first. |
   |
8 |
10.13% |
| Total: |
79 voters |
100% |
|
|  |
 |
|
tandeetaylor
|
|
Las Vegas
Apr 2001 time: 21:21
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Tell that to some people who have had their ears pierced, and felt a shitload of pain when it was done. |
Well, I certainly am not an expert in the matter, but I've never known anyone who felt a shitload of pain from getting their ears pierced, unless of course they rubbed it in dirt and it got infected. I certainly felt no pain. But of course, if you cut off the tip of my ear, it would probably hurt more than putting a small needle through it. And if the tip of my ear was connected to and in fact surrounded a more sensitive area, I'm quite certain it would hurt even more.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Tom31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by SuperSneak
Leaving it on at least means it can always be taken off later. |
By George, I think he's got it!!!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
tandeetaylor
|
|
Las Vegas
Apr 2001 time: 21:21
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ron Jeremy
The most sensitive part of the entire penis. Think it's called the "frenulum" or something. The strand linking the inside of the hood with the bell-end just below the jap's eye.
Stop me if I'm getting too technical. |
Well, I'm certainly not an expert here either, but that is right where it must be detached. That area is, umm, still sensitive in circumcized men, however, but as I far as I can see that is right where it is cut.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Tom31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui v
I know what 'de minimus' is, but it seems like you are now changing your tune. There was no de minimus justification before... and if anything, cutting off the foreskin for religious reasons is de minimus. I sure don't miss it any. I get enough sexual satisfaction from my penis as it is. |
A wounding does not become "de minimis" simply because it's done for religious reasons. If u know what "de minimis" is, then how come u can't spell it.
quote:
I get enough sexual satisfaction from my penis as it is.
|
Glad to hear it, because it can never be restored to its original condition!
Last edited by Tom31 on 10-08-2002 at 00:11
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999 time: 22:21
|
|
quote: Originally posted by SuperSneak
Whatever...I find it very amusing that the people who are sitting in lofty judgement have not and probably will not ever face the topic, so you really have nothing to say as far as I'm concerned. |
The problem here, Sneak, is you're boiling down the issue to a simple "I have a kid and you don't, so I suddenly have a better opinion on the matter". Incase you didn't read the first post, you'll see she asked for *MEN* to post about how they feel about being cut/uncut, not about what it's like for a parent to agonize over the decision.
Since we've decided (along with almost every pediatric society in the western world) that there is more harm than good in circumcision, and since you're not doing the circumcision for religious purposes, you're doing it for some other reason that you yourself don't even want to tell us. Was it so he'd look more like daddy, Sneak, or do you have some deep logic behind it?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Tom31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Obviously you have no legal training of any kind, because you can't understand that cutting foreskin is a de minimis wounding.
|
Well, you might be interested in reading this letter from the lawyer who founded the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law in Montreal:
http://www.courtchallenge.com/letters/somer1.html
Note the following sentence:
"However, even the rabbis with whom I talked agreed that male infant circumcision is not de minimis."
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999 time: 22:21
|
|
quote: Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
Perhaps as a useful prevention.
However he can always get circumzsized later if the evidence is overwhelming in 5- 10 years time |
Modern studies show the opposite trend, actually. Here are some links to get your started:
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html
http://www.nocirc.org/statements/hiv_statement2001.html
http://www.reproline.jhu.edu/englis...-3/nt1832a.html
In short, all of the studies showing uncut men are more succeptable tend to come from Africa, where there also tend to be inherent educational/social issues between who is circumcised and uncircumcised, depending on tribes, etc. As soon as you look at data in the western world, like the US, the situation reverses itself:
From the last article I cited:
quote: In the United States, on the other hand, data from the 1992 National Health and Social Life Survey, a nationally representative sample of 1,511 men and 1,921 women between the ages of 18 and 59, showed that there was no evidence of a prophylactic role for circumcision in regard to sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). In fact, circumcised men were slightly more likely to have had both a bacterial and a viral STD in their lifetime.2
Likewise, it has been observed that circumcision of men had no significant effect on the incidence of common STDs (genital herpes, genital warts and non-gonococcal urethritis) in Australia. |
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21. Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|