Bro-telligence or Just Hard To Swallow?

[Shithead]

This site provides a lot of 'information' in a digest format, along with the author's pro-circ-biased opinions. The problem that I have with the article is that it often portrays opinion as fact, makes ad hominem attacks on sources that the author disagrees with, and does not have references available for the in-text citations. This article is not compelling evidence for a pro-circ argument.

Yeah the site is written by a guy who seems a bit biased, but the great majority of the facts he accumulates are inarguable.

Of course it would seem like uncircumsied boys exhibit greater frequency of penile problems. They have their whole penis. That means there's more parts to get sick. You'd never have leg cramps if your legs were amputated either.

umm, i think its a little more complicated than that kong.

Also, problems like tight shaft skin, peno-scrotal webbing, curvature, length reduction and sensitivity loss

They address a lot of these problems, did you even read the site?

UTIs can be cured with antibiotics less invasively and far less painfully than with a scalpel. I'd hate to get an ear infection by that reasoning...ouch!

The problem was the rate of UTI's that go on to produce cancer.

Um, yeah, thanks. I guess that's one way to address a problem. Ignore it. Good thinking!

He's not ignoring any problems, christ kong, be friggen rational, could we once have a civilized debate.

There are alot of men who complain of long term psychological, emotional and sexual impediments, and these are actually points brought up in some of the professional articles I posted, namely the Journal of Health Psychology, written by actual medical doctors and scholars, not some guy with a circumcision fetish.

You know all the numbers throughout all the writting on that site, there reference numbers, so you can go look them up in the reference list, which consists of "actual medical doctors and scholars".

Could you put your emotion asside and your predispostions. Im a real skeptical bastard, but this site has almost changed my mind on the whole thing. Rather than just rant off how shit the site is, bring up points where the site has made a mistake and then find somthing in your articles that proves it, doesn't that sound nice and mature?

 

[Vectormatch]

At what age do most men develop penile cancer, if they ever do? Plus, by the time I'm that age, they will have a cure for it probably. I still could get testicular, prostate, bone, skin and a lot of other cancers that don't require and operation as a baby.

My sister had some UTIs growing up. I'm sure she was in less pain then I was after the operation. Once antibiotics were discovered, that argument is no longer valid.

And at first I was glad I was cut as a baby so I wouldn't remember it, but the fact that I had no say in the matter disturbs me. And I still haven't heard any reason that makes me glad that I've been cut.

And why doesn't this topic get discussed in biology classes and health classes in school? The Discovery Health should do an episode on this topic. I still don't know how I found out about circumcision, but I was 23 years old when I did.

 

[Shithead]

I'll start the ball rolling: AIDS

Over 80% of these infections have arisen from vaginal intercourse [139].

Epidemiological data from more than 40 studies shows that HIV is much more common in uncircumcised, as opposed to circumcised, heterosexual men [91]. A wealth of evidence indicates that male circumcision protects against HIV infection, as acknowledged in the major journals Science [138] and Nature [3 05], and its promotion in HIV prevention is advocated [76].

(Lack of circumcision)Is the biggest risk factor for heterosexually-acquired AIDS virus infection in men. 8-times higher risk by itself, and even higher when lesions from STDs are added in. Risk per exposure = 1 in 300.

Medical journals with evidence HIV is significantly more common in uncircimcised males. So now refute it with facts, or point out the flaws in it.

 

[kong1971]

From the AAP:

"Evidence regarding the relationship of circumcision to
sexually transmitted diseases is conflicting. Although
published reports suggest that canchroid, syphilis, human
papillomavirus and herpes simplex virus type 2 infection are
more frequent in uncircumcised men, methodologic problems
render these reports inconclusive."

Look, Shithead, I could fire just as many reports and studies at you as you could at me, but what point does it serve? Circumcision is not the cure to AIDS. If it was, the US and Africa would be virtually AIDS free. Do you not see the common sense reasoning behind this? Are you just arguing for arguments sake? Abstinence and condoms are the only real prevenion for AIDS. Now, if you recommend that men go out and fuck whoever they want without protection just because they're circumcised, then go right ahead.

PS-- UTIs do not cause cancer. The HPV virus and poor penile hygeine is what is believed to cause cervical and penile cancer... and that's a big maybe because, like I said, many countries that do not practice circumcision actually have LOWER rates than we do! UTIs can be fixed with antibiotics. HPV can be cleared up with water and a washrag. The argument is not that circumcision doesn't help prevent these problems [maybe]. The argument is that circumcision is unnecessarily invasive, painful and damaging when the two health problems can be easily addressed with good personal hygiene and mild antibiotics.

PPS-- Please don't get personal and imply I am being irrational and uncivilized. I am actually in a very good mood and being very rational. How long do you think the other forum members are even going to continue paying attention to that tired ploy? They know I'm not crazy.

 

[kong1971]

Point taken. I see where you are coming from now.

I will stay out of your way for now on, as I myself am far from perfect. So each of these threads in the FR forum doesn't turn into flames which could happen, I apologize.

Thank you, AncientChina. I very much appreciate that.

 

[Shithead]

From the AAP:

"Evidence regarding the relationship of circumcision to
sexually transmitted diseases is conflicting. Although
published reports suggest that canchroid, syphilis, human
papillomavirus and herpes simplex virus type 2 infection are
more frequent in uncircumcised men, methodologic problems
render these reports inconclusive."

Look, Shithead, I could fire just as many reports and studies at you as you could at me, but what point does it serve?

It serves a very important point, its the same point as to why you made this thread. Anyway, your quote doesn't address AIDS

 

[Mr. Nine]

I'm not being a smart ass but have you considered a complete departure from all forum activity? I have found that frequent hiatuses clear my mind. For me, there is no validity to the theory that you have to post in a forum to grow your dick. I catch myself from time to time trying too hard to convey deep ideas and beliefs to guys on an anonymous forum that I really don't know at all.

My remedy has helped tremendously and probably has kept me from being banned many times.

 

[Priapologist]

Yeah the site is written by a guy who seems a bit biased, but the great majority of the facts he accumulates are inarguable.

They are very "arguable".

The problem was the rate of UTI's that go on to produce cancer.

Kong is correct, UTIs do not cause cancer.

You know all the numbers throughout all the writting on that site, there reference numbers, so you can go look them up in the reference list, which consists of "actual medical doctors and scholars".

I already addressed this issue, Shithead. There are reference numbers in-text, but there is no reference list in the article. Reference numbers are meaningless if they don't reference anything. The article is, at this juncture, nothing more than one man's opinion.

Peace.
Pri

 

[LambdaCalc]

This probably should be in the deep thoughts section, as someone mentioned earlier.

Kong: People are debating with you because you present your information as if it has been handed to you by an infallible god. Any time information is presented this way someone will undoubtedly take up the other side just as hardcore as the original presenter.

 

[kong1971]

Shithead, you made your point and I made mine. Let's leave it at that. I'm not trying to "win" or "beat you", just discuss ideas. The opinions are out there on the floor. It's done.

You believe that circumcision helps prevent the spread of AIDS.

I say the evidence is inconclusive and condoms and abstinence work better without the damage of cutting off erogenous tissue.

Let's agree to disagree on this topic.

 

[kong1971]

Lambda, I've been told that before. I'm honestly not trying to sound that way. Seriously, do you start every sentence with "I believe..." and "It's my opinion that..." ? I write the way I write. No one else on this forum is required to qualify every statement they make, so why should I? The only reason some attempt to censor my contributions is that circumcision is a controversial subject. If it's too much for you to handle, go to the porno section or picture proof and look at the pictures... and I say that not in anger but in a mild teasing manner with a little smilie so as not to offend!

It's my opinion that this thread is better suited for the FR forum because it contains a lot of info on WHY to restore, but if any other moderators believe it should be moved, then they can do so. It wouldn't bother me either way.

 

[9cyclops9]

I think the thread is fine here. But that's just my opinion, I have no references to back me up.

 

[Priapologist]

I think the thread is fine here. But that's just my opinion, I have no references to back me up.

LOL! Smartass! rofl

Thanks man, this thread needed some levity.

 

[Shithead]

They are very "arguable".

There are hundreds of statements and theories in that article, i said lots are inarguable and you replied by saying the lot are shithouse?!? how about point one out and say why, otherwise you sound just like what you claim this guy to be.

Kong is correct, UTIs do not cause cancer.

Yeah i dunno much about this, i'll take ya word for it.

I already addressed this issue, Shithead. There are reference numbers in-text, but there is no reference list in the article. Reference numbers are meaningless if they don't reference anything. The article is, at this juncture, nothing more than one man's opinion.

If you go to the top of the page and click on REFERENCES you will quickly directed to a page that shoots the shit outa that argument.

Let's agree to disagree on this topic.

Yeah i reckon we could do that, how about we agree that their are strong and factual arguments on both sides of the debate.

 

[MDC]

Shithead,
Even if there are benefits to being circumcised, such as cleaning yourself will be less complicated, circumcising infants is unjustifiable.

 

[kong1971]

Some of those references are to publications that are 30+ years old, you know. I'd rather not get into a "my references are bigger than yours" battle. It doesn't solve anything. Pri or I could make a thousand arguments and present a thousand studies, but you either have to believe or not believe after a point. The tide is turning right now as far as medical research and medical opinion, so it is all going to be a moot point anyway before long. I'm curious what you actually believe, tho. Do you actually believe circumcision fixes anything? Would you have prefered to be cut or uncut if you had had a choice? Will you have your kids cut? Have you thought about restoration?

 

[Shithead]

Some of those references are to publications that are 30+ years old, you know. I'd rather not get into a "my references are bigger than yours" battle.

What!? you can't just throw an attack and then follow it up by saying the argument would be pointless. It's like me calling you a cockhead and then saying "well name calling is unnecessary".


You've managed to show a lot of credible sources for anti-circumcision, and as you've said, we could both provide hundreds of journals and reports.

I'm not trying to prove cirumcision right or wrong, there is a huge lack of information on the positives of circumcision here, and i would rather people go look into both sides of the argument instead of making their opinion entirely from the bias in this forum section.



As for what i believe, i don't really know yet, and since i won't be having kids for a very long time im probably not gonna be thinking about it much until then.
The #1 reason for me why circumcision shouldn't be practiced is the lack of sensitivity possibility.
The #1 reason for me why it should be done is because of its origin, and that numerous isolated cultures practiced circumcision, how did so many cultures coincidently take up the same practice?

I'm not gonna do FR coz my circumcision was fine and my forskin is fine the way it is now.

 

[kong1971]

I presented my argument. What about it didn't you understand? Are you trying to bait me into getting frustrated? I'm not going to keep repeating myself. For you, I'll say it one last time. My argument against circumcision as prevention of AIDS is two-fold. The AAP admitted that, although circumcision seems to help reduce the incidence of STDs, the testing was somewhat ambiguous and they cannot say for sure. The second part of my argument was that condoms prevent AIDS without cutting off erogenous tissue.

Although I personally feel that the way circumcision is done in the US is morally wrong and physically damaging, I would never presume to impose my beliefs on anyone. I think we should all have a choice in the matter, but there is no such thing as "choice" when there is a lack of education. There is no lack of information on the pro-circumcision side. It is an institutionalized practice that is ingrained into our very culture and driven more by profit than actual medical concerns. There is a definite lack of education on the anti-circumcision side, and that is what I'm trying to combat here.

I'm glad you're open-minded about it and still looking into it. I'd hate to think you were just playing devil's advocate here. As to why so many cultures have adopted the practice, I read an article that I found very interesting. In it, the author stated that circumcision sprang up as a kind of group protective mechanism, a way to curb the male libido and make them a little more tractable, less destructive to the group and a little less distracted by sexual urges so that they could be better providers.

I think you should restore your foreskin, tho. Non-conformity is cool!

 

[MDC]

The problem with studies comparing STD rates among circumcised and uncircumcised poplulations is that they don't account for cultural differences. One group in Africa that circumcises may be very different with regards to promiscuity, when compared to another group that does not practice circumcision. STD rates between those groups has nothing to do with circumcision status, though that is the nature of the "study".

 

[Priapologist]

There are hundreds of statements and theories in that article, i said lots are inarguable and you replied by saying the lot are shithouse?!?

I said nothing like that, Shithead. I said that they were "arguable". Almost any topic that you care to bring up is "arguable", since not everyone agrees on every topic. Some people still believe that the Earth is flat and "argue" passionately in favor of that point of view.

...how about point one out and say why, otherwise you sound just like what you claim this guy to be.

I will, but I needed the references that he is citing. The link that you provided starts the webpage below the section where the References link is located. Since the convention is to put references at the end of the article (bottom of the page), I could not find them. Thanks for pointing them out.

It will take me several days to wade through the scientific and medical literature that he has linked to. I have already read several of the referenced papers and have found those to be conjectural and scientifically weak. I will provide specific points, both pro-circ and anti-circ, after I have had a chance to fully analyze the literature.

Pri