[Godstud]

@Seeker8You are using a completely different post from what Rugoz posted, that I responded to.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... 6.full.pdf

You like to point to a single study, and say it's 100% correct and dismiss many others that say differently. Why do you so quickly dismiss Drlee's study that disproves what you want to believe?

Why do you dismiss this study, but choose to believe a single study made by some unknown, with little medical backing?

Male Circumcision Benefits Outweigh Risks, CDC says
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -cdc-says/


Some who oppose male circumcision cite anecdotal reports that male circumcision can cause sexual dysfunction. The male circumcision trials evaluated sexual satisfaction in adult men and their female partners before and after the procedure and compared men randomized to male circumcision with uncircumcised controls. There were no significant differences in male sexual satisfaction or dysfunction among trial participants, and in one trial, circumcised men reported increased penile sensitivity and enhanced ease of reaching orgasm.9 In addition, 97% of female partners reported either no change or improved sexual satisfaction after their male partner was circumcised.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3684945/

How arrogant are people that think they already know everything about a human organ.

Yes, you should leave it to medical professionals, not melodramatic snowflakes who equate circumcision to FGM. There is NO comparison.

[Seeker8]

I don't need science to tell me that a foreskin is nice to have, because I actually have one.

But if you insist, here's some reading for you:

Cultural Bias in the AAP’s 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on Male Circumcision

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... 6.full.pdf



That's literally the dumbest thing I've read here in a while.



It's super easy to find studies saying the opposite. E.g.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17155977

CONCLUSION: There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.

I obviously don't have time to conduct a literature review.

Ok i quoted the post this time, both studies are there. Can you just stop lying FFS. I think i'd rather argue with Donald Trump.

You like to point to a single study, and say it's 100% correct and dismiss many others that say differently. Why do you so quickly dismiss Drlee's study that disproves what you want to believe?

Why do you dismiss this study, but choose to believe a single study made by some unknown, with little medical backing?

No, i posted lots of studies, I seen loads more. Dr Lee's claim that the science is clear cut is total bullshit.

American doctors and scientists doing these studies have a conflict of interest.
I posted about the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... n-question

I posted this about the African studies:

Circumcision/HIV Claims are Based on Insufficient Evidence

An article endorsed by thirty-two professionals questions the results of three highly publicized African circumcision studies. The studies claim that circumcision reduces HIV transmission, and they are being used to promote circumcisions. Substantial evidence in this article refutes the claim of the studies.

Examples in the article include the following:

Circumcision is associated with increased transmission of HIV to women.
Conditions for the studies were unlike conditions found in real-world settings.
Other studies show that male circumcision is not associated with reduced HIV transmission.
The U.S. has a high rate of HIV infection and a high rate of circumcision. Other countries have low rates of circumcision and low rates of HIV infection.
Condoms are 95 times more cost effective in preventing HIV transmission.
Circumcision removes healthy, functioning, unique tissue, raising ethical considerations.
Green, L. et al., "Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention: Insufficient Evidence and Neglected External Validity," American Journal of Preventive Medicine 39 (2010): 479-82.

And i posted about the Australian Doctor Morris that Dr lee used as evidence:

He has criticised the circumcision policy[6] of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, which he says is "not evidence-based and should be retracted,"[7] however his comments were rejected by the RACP. Morris has criticized anti-circumcision activists for what he says is the "cult-like devotion" they exhibit to their cause.[8] Morris wrote the 1999 book In Favour of Circumcision; Basil Donovan, Director of the Sydney Sexual Health Centre and a Clinical Professor in the School of Public Health and Community Medicine at the same university at which Morris was employed, the University of Sydney, criticised the book as "dangerous" and "a serious disservice to parents."[9] Other experts are also forthright in their criticism of Morris over circumcision.[10]

Yes, you should leave it to medical professionals, not melodramatic snowflakes who equate circumcision to FGM. There is NO comparison.

Yea, you completely missed the point there.

No one said MGM is as bad as the worst type of FGM, but it's interesting that you didn't object to Dr lee equating MGM with hair and finger nail cutting.

And again you come with the big man talk. Calling people cry babies and slowflakes doesn't make you sound tough. Especially when you run away crying from the forum when someone offends you.

Also we are talking about babies that are getting part of their penis chopped off. So "cry baby" was a bit of a stupid comment.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Why do you make the idiotic assumption that we are angry? Why do you then dismiss actual scientific evidence immediately after that?

Maybe because you use words like "idiotic".

@Pants-of-dog And would you have a problem with FGM if it involved removing the clitoral hood?

Despite your best efforts POD this isn't a man vs woman issue, it's a human rights issue for all. I almost get the sense that you feel men deserve to have part of their penis cut off.

Taking into account the information from all sides there isn't enough evidence to support circumcision as a completely beneficial procedure with no side effects and therefore must be a decision made by the individual.

The health benefits that circumcision may have does not justify the procedure without consent of the patient (victim) unless done so due to an imminent danger to their well being especially when considering the negative aspects @Seeker8 has pointed out.

[Pants-of-dog]

And would you have a problem with FGM if it involved removing the clitoral hood?

Probably. Not sure. If it was as significant as male circumcision (i.e. had no significant impact on the person involved), then maybe not.

Despite your best efforts POD this isn't a man vs woman issue, it's a human rights issue for all. I almost get the sense that you feel men deserve to have part of their penis cut off.

Since I hever said anything about circumcision being a good idea, this would be a strawman, so I will simply ignore it.

Taking into account the information from all sides there isn't enough evidence to support circumcision as a completely beneficial procedure with no side effects and therefore must be a decision made by the individual.

The health benefits that circumcision may have does not justify the procedure without consent of the patient (victim) unless done so due to an imminent danger to their well being especially when considering the negative aspects @Seeker8 has pointed out.

I have looked at the studies by both sides and I would argue that neither the benefits nor the drawbacks are significant enough to merit legislation.

Considering your position on abortion, i.e, that the consent of the woman is not important, I find your consent argument to be amusing in its hypocrisy, but I will address it nonetheless.

Circumcision as practiced by Jews, Muslims, and Protestants is an example of ritual scarification to denote membership in the religious community. Many cultures practice this, and if there are no significant health drawbacks to the practice, then I will refrain from intruding on the religious and cultural rights of other communities.

Please note that since FGM has these associated significant health drawbacks, it is different from male circumcision.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

So you see no morale issue with religious branding?

If I support consent for circumcision it should be no surprise that I require someone to give consent before their life is terminated. But let's not bring abortion into this discussion again.

[Seeker8]

I don't understand why POD doesn't care about all the men/boys who are angry that they lost a useful part of their body, not to mention the ones who had serious problems from it.

Surely that should have priority over someones religious rights.

[Drlee]

There's masses of studies showing terrible physical and psychological damage from MGM, so much i can't even be bothered to post it all because it will be ignored anyway.

No there aren't. Just the opposite.

Because you are not a professional you made some simple mistakes. You took to google looking for something to support your confirmation bias. And of course you found some big numbers in a very tiny sample size.

Then you chose a study from Korea. This is necessarily not bad because it represents one of the very few countries where circumcision is nearly 100% and contains many people who were circumcised in adulthood for nonreligious purposes. But I did something you did not do. I read the study including the questions. Though the study is suggestive I recommend that you read the whole thing and look at the actual numbers of those reporting. You are essentially criticizing a practice that is thousands of years old based on the contentions of 28 men. 28.

Your study also does not consider the purpose of the surgery.

You did not (and I did) read the whole study nor are you aware of the questions asked.

There is a Taiwan study of a more than double sample size that contradicts these results. It concludes that there is no statistical difference in sexual satisfaction. In fact there are many of them with the same results.

Then there is the so-called autism study. Hokum. So what does cause autism:

A new study by the Medical Research Council, published in the journal JAMA Psychiatry, has revealed that most cases of ASD-74 to 98 percent—have no environmental cause. Using 516 twins as subjects, the study shows that ASD is almost completely in the genes that you inherit from your parents. That's it. Not from drugs during pregnancy, MMR vaccines, and not from glyphosate, or circumcision, but pure genetics, for at least 74 percent of cases and possibly a lot more. Additionally, the study shows that not just ASD, but individual autistic features (attributes of autism that many people exhibit without being autistic) also are determined by the same genetic association. That suggests that having a family member with ASD increases the chances of having autistism-like features, which makes sense. After all, genes do have something to do with brain development.

In the Denmark study they factored out those who were circumcised for religious purposes. Nice way to manipulate the gene pool, don't you think?

The CDC recommends circumcision. Recommends. They say:

"These recommendations are based on an evaluation of available information on the health risks and benefits associated with high-quality, medically performed male circumcision and were developed to pertain to men and male newborns in the United States,"

And the CDC has no industry or religious dog in the fight.

And while we are at it, the assertion that circumcision was to prevent masturbation is just silly. Perhaps a few people believed that but it was not a major movement. Now what was a major movement to prevent masturbation was the invention of Kellogg's Corn Flakes. Dr Kellogg believed that eating them resulted in reduced masturbation because masturbation was caused, in his scholarly opinion, by arousal itself caused by a died that was too spicy. He advocated bland foods. Interestingly he was one of the good doctors who recommended circumcision to stop masturbation. But only because the painful operation he proposed for a fairly rare condition took a while to cure.

I could go on and on. This and the antivax movement are great examples of what happens when amateurs try to interpret the results of individual studies and then turn their analysis into action on the part of "everyone".

I wish I had a dollar for every study I have seen on vitamins. They are good...they are bad.....don't take iron....do take vitamin c....don't take vitamin C...

What is a person to do?

The answer is to look to the experts. Just purchasing 'Iamanexpertwhobelievescandlescausecancer.com is not a reliable source. And mind you I can post here a study that says that candles can cause cancer. Suffice it to say, I am not going to stay out of fancy restaurants because I fear the little tea candle on my table. And I am not going to let "dontcutmybaby.org inexpertly cherry pick studies and take their opinions as scientific fact.

But here we go again with the "not so smart" people trying to label make circumcision as mutilation. They are foolish. Their hyperbole fails to do anything but make them look stupid. It is a rhetorical device not based on good science.

Perhaps they feel bad because circumcised (really mutilated in the cruelest manner) women and girls are getting all of the sympathy. Jealousy can do that.

So as Godstud and I have said time and time again:

Do what you want. If you want to snip go ahead. If you don't want to don't. We have no dog in the fight. Except for this. If you refer to circumcision as mutilation you are just being stupid. Or deliberately inflammatory. But the evidence from the real experts interpreting the data on the subject disagrees with you.

As usual Seeker has googled more studies he does not understand.

[Godstud]

Especially when you run away crying from the forum when someone offends you.

Lying like a little bitch doesn't make you appear any smarter.

Calling something idiotic, does not infer anger, either. I don't know where you get your childish and naive attitude from, but it's sad.

This thread is about FGM, not MGM. That you and others seek to change it to a thread about MGM, is puerile, and trivializes the real tragedy of FGM.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

I started the thread with the intention of highlighting the criminal act that is MGM. I condemn all forms of genital mutilation from pricking the clitoris to cutting off the foreskin.

That some on this forum would oppose FGM while supporting MGM through the influence of the media is truly Orwellian.

[Godstud]

That some on this forum would oppose FGM while supporting MGM through the influence of the media is truly Orwellian.

That some people consider circumcision to be MGM is the truly ridiculous thing. There are medical benefits to it, and you simply don't like that the medical community does not hold your own personal views on it.

Your "Orwellian" statement is pretty melodramatic.

[Drlee]

I started the thread with the intention of highlighting the criminal act that is MGM. I condemn all forms of genital mutilation from pricking the clitoris to cutting off the foreskin.

That some on this forum would oppose FGM while supporting MGM through the influence of the media is truly Orwellian.

Laughable. Now its about the media.

[Nonsense]

I fail to see the justification of male circumcision,thats why it should be called male genital mutilation.

How on earth does any parent justify arbitrarily the mutilation of their infants?

I was circumcised as an infant,it doesn't take a genius to work out that I never had any input on the decision to be mutilated.
To say that parents only should be the decision makers in that decision is perverse in the extreme,I think that males on growing up should be able to sue their parents for making that decision as should females as well.

There is no 'medical' justification at such an early age,when older,it's usually infections under the foreskin that are a problem, easily treated by topical antibacterial creams & better hygeine.

The above 'problem' is why proper respect for our female sexual partners is partly achieved by good pre-sexual activity hygeine.

There is no 'sociological' reason to circumcise male or females, any 'religious' decision to do so by parents should be made a criminal offense globally, our bodies are only an individuals to decide on such things & only at an age when they are able to make such decisions legally.

[Godstud]

I fail to see the justification of male circumcision,thats why it should be called male genital mutilation.

Yes, but it's not all about your feelings. Circumcision is not male genital mutilation, and no medical practitioner would ever refer to the surgical procedure as such. Only melodramatic people on this forum see it as such.

How on earth does any parent justify arbitrarily the mutilation of their infants?

Because it's not mutilation. It's only mutilation in your own mind.

Mutilation:
the infliction of serious damage on something.

It can't even be applied to circumcision, as it is NOT serious damage, and according to medical science does not impede use.

How you feel about it, isn't going to change that it is not MGM, but circumcision(a medical procedure).

[jessupjonesjnr87]

That's a very selective definition of mutilation.
Mutilation or maiming is the cutting off or injury to the body part of a person so that the body part is permanently damaged or disfigured.

[Drlee]

Nonsense. Read the thread and then post. Don't just parachute your ignorance into the end of the thread. Once you have read the evidence you will probably not make such ignorant analysis of a fairly common and minor surgical procedure.

@jessupjonesjnr87

Yours is the narrow definition. In fact it is an absurd definition. No doubt you would consider an appendectomy mutilation. You really are looking pretty ridiculous right about now.

[Seeker8]

Lying like a little bitch doesn't make you appear any smarter.

I know so why do you lie so much?
But it wasn't a lie. You said you weren't coming back, pity you changed your mind.

What happened to your claim about Rugoz? Are you not going to respond to being caught lying?

---

And Dr lee I'd rather not take advice from someone who thinks getting your hair cut is equivalent to cutting off your foreskin.
Only someone who has a massive complex about having had it done to themselves would make such an argument.

And i don't why doctors from countries who don't practice MGM would have a bias? What would be their motivation???

Whereas we know there are big conflicts of interest in countries like the U.S.

[Pants-of-dog]

So you see no morale issue with religious branding?

If I support consent for circumcision it should be no surprise that I require someone to give consent before their life is terminated. But let's not bring abortion into this discussion again.

No, I have no problem with religious branding. I support the rights of the Maori to have those cool face tattoos, or for Cree women to get those lines on their chin, or for Plains tribes to do the Sundance.

I believe in religious freedom.

Of course, there should be limits to religious freedom, including outlawing those practices that have a significant health drawback. Male circumcision does not. FGM does.

————————

I don't understand why POD doesn't care about all the men/boys who are angry that they lost a useful part of their body, not to mention the ones who had serious problems from it.

Surely that should have priority over someones religious rights.

I looked at your studies. I did not find that the results merited outlawing religious freedom.

[Drlee]

Seeker8 wrote:
I don't understand why POD doesn't care about all the men/boys who are angry that they lost a useful part of their body, not to mention the ones who had serious problems from it.

I agree with PODs answers.

To go further. There are vanishingly few problems encountered with surgical circumcision that amount to more than minor medical intervention. Male discontent with circumcision seems to be a recent phenomenon. Millennials are the ones. And they have been sold a bill of goods by the plethora of ridiculous websites dedicated to misinformation and their general desire to be at least some kind of victim. But even though the number of infant circumcisions in the US is falling slightly the number of adults seeking the procedure is increasing.

As for it being a useful part of the body. This is not really true. There are some few studies that infer some tiny loss of sensation but they are, if I am being kind to them, inconclusive. They are far outweighed by the advantages. Virtually all medical experts favor circumcision over not. And even those who do not are fine with it being done as elective surgery.

I have presented the evidence. There are many on this forum who simply are too dense or too involved in their precious opinions to understand it. So they consider to engage in hyperbolic language. As Godstud and I have repeatedly said, we don't give a rats ass what others do as long as they don't interfere with the right of others or pass misinformation to those who deserve to be allowed to make an objective decision. Anti circumcision folks are very much like antivaxers. Not to smart or over invested in some imagined principle. But they love numbers. Here is one. 90%+ of men who are circumcised are glad they are.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

No, I have no problem with religious branding. I support the rights of the Maori to have those cool face tattoos, or for Cree women to get those lines on their chin, or for Plains tribes to do the Sundance.

I believe in religious freedom.

Would you think it was okay for the Maori to tattoo newborn babies?

[Nonsense]

Yes, but it's not all about your feelings. Circumcision is not male genital mutilation, and no medical practitioner would ever refer to the surgical procedure as such. Only melodramatic people on this forum see it as such.

Because it's not mutilation. It's only mutilation in your own mind.

Mutilation:
the infliction of serious damage on something.

It can't even be applied to circumcision, as it is NOT serious damage, and according to medical science does not impede use.

How you feel about it, isn't going to change that it is not MGM, but circumcision(a medical procedure).

NO, it's NOT just in my 'mind',but it is in the mindset of those who cannot look outside of their own language of conformity.

It IS 'serious damage', because the 'victim' is under an anaesthetic say, does not change the argument one iota.

The fact that the assailant wears a white coat & wields a surgical knife is even more tangent to abuse by a 'professional'.
Medical opinion about impediment by way of usage is irrelevant.

The act of inflicting physical damage on an infant or young person outside of a medical emergency ought to be considered a criminal act.
That such acts include an anaesthetic,is done by a doctor or surgeon is irrelevent, the act is unnecessary,is without consent,is not conducive to the immediate or future welfare of those affected by such acts.

'Circumcision' is not an act with permission to be intentionally assaulted,whether by a parent or a 'professional',it's undertaken without the consent of the victim, it's involuntary by it's nature & should not be undertaken by health professionals.

A parents 'rights' do not extend to allowing their offspring to be physically assaulted below the age of accepted personal responsibility in the pretence of 'protecting' a childs future health.


These are 'victims', because, by & large they are under the age of personal responsibility for making such decisions that have been taken on their behalf by adults that consider the welfare of their offspring secondary to their own prejudices.