 |
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% |
|
| |
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypse
And the lube argument is stupid. She would be more than wet enough if you do it right. |
The lube argument is stupid, but it's a nice feature.
The real arguments against circumcision are:
It is incredibly painful for an extended period of time for the baby, several studies have shown this can have some long term psychological effects (see my latest really long essay I quoted)
There are potential complications. Not only is it possible to completely butcher the penis, but infection rate skyrockets for the couple weeks after the operation.
It is not true it prevents cancer in the slightest. The one study that said it helped prevent penile cancer has since been dismissed as fundamentally flawed, and many more modern studies claim there's zero difference in cut and uncut men's infection rates.
The argument that uncut men are more prone to STDs comes from nowhere. 28 modern studies all confirmed that circumcised men are actually more prone to getting STDs than uncircumcised men.
You're cutting off THE most nerve-centric part of the organ. The result is less pleasure during sex.
And the upside to circumcision?
If you're in the south, eastern, or midwestern US you're going to be in the ~65% number of people who are cut, rather than be "teased" because you're in the 35% number. But if you live in the west, the situations reverse themselves anyway.
Extremely weak and pathetic argument for the "pro" side, IMHO.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Apocalypse
|
 |
Lexington, VA: College - Houston, TX: Home
Aug 2005
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
The lube argument is stupid, but it's a nice feature. |
It makes you lazy if anything.
It is incredibly painful for an extended period of time for the baby, several studies have shown this can have some long term psychological effects (see my latest really long essay I quoted)
I don't trust most psychologists.
There are potential complications. Not only is it possible to completely butcher the penis, but infection rate skyrockets for the couple weeks after the operation.
Can be prevented if the parents take proper care of the baby.
It is not true it prevents cancer in the slightest. The one study that said it helped prevent penile cancer has since been dismissed as fundamentally flawed, and many more modern studies claim there's zero difference in cut and uncut men's infection rates.
This is a neutral argument. Neither for or against.
The argument that uncut men are more prone to STDs comes from nowhere. 28 modern studies all confirmed that circumcised men are actually more prone to getting STDs than uncircumcised men.
Use a condom or only sleep with clean people.
You're cutting off THE most nerve-centric part of the organ. The result is less pleasure during sex.
Can also result in longer sex. Spontaneous erections are less common too.
quote:
And the upside to circumcision?
If you're in the south, eastern, or midwestern US you're going to be in the ~65% number of people who are cut, rather than be "teased" because you're in the 35% number. But if you live in the west, the situations reverse themselves anyway. |
I love how you ignore previous arguments.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Apocalypse
|
|
Lexington, VA: College - Houston, TX: Home
Aug 2005
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Still, you're causing a great amount of pain over an extended period of time, and the vast majority do so without sedation. |
And they are other studies that say they recover easily. The starter of this thread can give sedation too, so this is a mute point.
quote:
Not necessarily, it can get infected or cause other complications even if you do everything right... |
The chances are very minimal though.
quote:
Actually, again from my last cited huge essay, circumcised men complain more about premature ejaculation than uncircumcised men. They gave a possible explanation for it, but I can't recall it now. This is a faulty argument at its core, because it depends on the man, not whether he has foreskin or not. |
Premature ejaculation isn't cause by sensitivity. I'm talking about lasting time for normal people
quote:
I ignored irrelevant arguments. But feel free to enlighten me... |
You've already heard them. That is the point. You'll just ignore them again 100 posts from now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So what about the person that posted in this thread saying he was the same sexual pleasure wise after he got it snipped in his 20s? |
He's the oddball, most people say otherwise.
quote:
YES! I'm guessing you didn't spend much time in US highschools |
You're right, not US high schools. But then again I also was in the US in the civilized West, where circumsisions are the minority. 
But you must admit, Imran, that arguing for circumcision on the basis of peer pressure, particularly when the boy's a very large "minority" (~40% of the US, 85% of the World), is stupid. I've personally met more women who would prefer the uncut to the cut, but I've also spent my high school years in Canada where the cut boys are the freaks. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-08-2002 00:07
. 
|