Going for the snip

[Sava]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

There are studies going both ways.

Same with "climate change".

BTW, absent from your post are such studies... strange... maybe you could find just one! God forbid you support your argument. Have you even seen such a study?

But hey, believe what you want to believe... dare I suggest you are biased in your belief?

It's easy to see what is going on here. The people opposed to "snipping" in general because they view the concept as somehow being an attack on their own "manhood". And because the people in question don't have any of the usual issues associated with not being "snipped", well, why should anyone be snipped?

I'll trust the medical professionals on this one... KTHX

And as smart as I think you are KH, your area of expertise is limited.






My opinion. It really doesn't matter as long as one takes proper care of himself. However, if I have a male child, I will be getting him snipped.

And for the record... the overwhelming opinion of the ladies is: uncut is gross. Really, that's all I care about.

But I'm sure Asher will argue that is because of the influence of their SNIPPED FATHERS, ZOMFG!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Sava
Same with "climate change".

BTW, absent from your post are such studies... strange... maybe you could find just one! God forbid you support your argument. Have you even seen such a study?

http://www.update-software.com/abstracts/AB003362.htm

Authors' conclusions: We found insufficient evidence to support an interventional effect of male circumcision on HIV acquisition in heterosexual men. The results from existing observational studies show a strong epidemiological association between male circumcision and prevention of HIV, especially among high-risk groups. However, observational studies are inherently limited by confounding which is unlikely to be fully adjusted for. In the light of forthcoming results from RCTs, the value of IPD analysis of the included studies is doubtful. The results of these trials will need to be carefully considered before circumcision is implemented as a public health intervention for prevention of sexually transmitted HIV.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1492935&dopt=Abstract

PIP: Between August 1990 and February 1991, health workers took blood samples from, and trained interviewers spoke to, 5145 15-to-54-year-old adults living in either an urban area (1554), in a rural village (2434), or in a roadside settlement (1157) in the Mwanza Region of Tanzania to determine the prevalence of HIV-1 infection and its most significant risk factors. The prevalence rate of HIV-1 infection was highest in urban areas, lower in roadside settlements, and lowest in rural areas (11.8%, 7.3%, and 2.5%, respectively), suggesting that HIV-1 had spread along main roads. Yet, there were as many people infected with HIV-1 in rural areas of the Mwanza Region as there were in Mwanza town. Women were 1.2 (rural) to 1.7 (urban) times more likely to be infected with HIV-1 than were men, indicating greater efficiency of HIV-1 transmission from men to women than from women to men. HIV-1 infection peaked in the 15-to-34-year-old group in women and in the 25-to-44-year-old group in men. Separated, divorced, or widowed men and women were at increased risk of being HIV-1 infected, even when controlled for numerous factors (odds ratio (OR) = 3.4 and 1.6, respectively). This may have been an indication of multiple partners, since the question concerning multiple partners was vague. Other important risk factors for women and men were syphilis antibodies (OR = 1.7 and 1.85), history of genital discharge or chancroid (OR = 2, 1.6 and 2.7, 1.6), travel to Mwanza town (OR = 2.1 and 1.7), and receiving injections during the previous 12 months (OR = 1.5 and 1.9). There was no link between male circumcision and HIV-1 infection. In fact, there seemed to be a moderate protective effect (OR = 0.8). This effect may be even more likely since urban men, who were at greatest risk of HIV-1 infection (8.7% vs. 5.4% [roadside] and 2.4% [rural]), had the highest rate of circumcision (61% vs. 29% and 17%, respectively).

[Asher]

And for the record... the overwhelming opinion of the ladies is: uncut is gross. Really, that's all I care about.

Worldwide, that is not the case. That's only the case where circumcision is the norm, because it's..."normal" there.

Outside of circumcised society, men with circumcised penises are tend to be considered rather mutilated...hence the scar line.

My BF is circumcised and I am not, and he feels badly about it because he's "abnormal" here and feels like he's missing something compared to me. anecdotal evidence, sure...

[Asher]

As a side note, as the original study I quoted said, the studies that show a link between circumcision and uncircumcised men -- predominately in Africa -- are terrible sources because there are so many confounding factors. People with circumcised penises in Africa are likely to belong to different religious groups than those without; in Africa the richer people can afford to get circumcision while the poor cannot and this socioeconomic status also affects sexual practice, different regions have different customs (circumsized and uncircumsized) that also leads to different sexual practices, etc.

They're not reliable studies in the least. They do not illustrate a causal relationship.

That is why, outside of the US, the vast majority of pediatric societies of "medical professionals" (that you say you trust more), do not recommend neonatal circumcision unless for religious reasons.

[Sava]

Wow. You found one study that is over 15 years old. Alert the media!

And that study only looked at HIV infection...

If you want an objective look, I suggest this piece:

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html

Circumcision decreases the incidence of urinary tract infections in the first year of life, and also protects against the development of penile cancer later in life. The circumcised male also may be somewhat less susceptible to HIV infection and certain sexually transmissible diseases. The low incidence of urinary tract infections and penile cancer mitigates the potential medical benefits compared with the risks of circumcision. In the case of sexual transmission of HIV, behavioral factors are far more important in preventing these infections than the presence or absence of a foreskin.

So really, it's by no means a necessity. Just a little helpful in terms of preventing some things... but there are certainly other, more important, factors involved.

As I said, the ladies prefer it.

And since I live in America, and we're talking about American social norms... I could care less about what ladies in other parts of the world think.

[Sava]

And to PWN you on the HIV stuff:

from my AMA link:

The data on circumcision status and susceptibility to HIV infection and other sexually transmissible diseases have been recently reviewed. Five of 7 prospective studies involving heterosexual transmission of HIV-1 found a statistically significant association between lack of circumcision and elevated risk for acquisition of HIV (relative risks 2.3-8.1)

kTHX

[Lorizael]

Can't you people post one post at a time.

[Sava]

stfu noob

[KrazyHorse]

BTW, absent from your post are such studies

Wow. What a great point. Except that Dr Strangelove didn't post any studies either. You maroon.

Just because I don't feel like spending 5 minutes googling for reputable studies doesn't mean they don't exist.

[Asher]

Sava, the whole point is there are studies that go both ways. All of them are observational studies which are no way to establish a causal relationship.

This is why virtually every pediatric society in the world does not recommend neonatal circumcision unless it is medically warranted, or for religious reasons.

HIV transmission rates are either higher or lower when circumcised, depending which study you read and depending on how the observational study ended up being...but it does not indicate causation. I cannot emphasize that enough.

But that's not even the point...if you don't wanna get HIV, you use a frickin' condom. Regardless if you're circumcised or not.

Even if circumcision made you 100x less likely to get HIV than uncircumcised (which it is NOT), in this day an age in the western world it's still not worth it. People are much more likely to get infections from the actual operation themselves or suffer from complications than they are to contract HIV. And if you contract HIV from unprotected sex, well, that's your problem and certainly no argument in favor of circumcision.

The simple problem is this: Uncircumcised people can become circumcised if they want to.
Circumcised people cannot become uncircumcised if they want to.

Since both people live after the operation, it becomes a non-issue to a lot of people. In reality, it should be an issue -- you are literally mutilating a child and putting them in intense pain for something that is purely cosmetic, and actually something that is less functional. In my developmental psychology we read a study on the pain a baby goes through during circumcision, and it's extremely high on the pain scale. Most people don't seem to care about this because of infantile amnesia, but that doesn't mean it doesn't affect the child's psyche.

The fact that so many circumcised people are so willing to circumcise their children (or their patients...) is simply because of a subconscious (or conscious) desire to fit in. If they accept that circumcision results in a loss of function for no real benefits, they feel like they're missing something or they were wronged by something they had no input in. Naturally, they fight that...

[KrazyHorse]

That is why, outside of the US, the vast majority of pediatric societies of "medical professionals" (that you say you trust more), do not recommend neonatal circumcision unless for religious reasons.

The American pediatric association doesn't reccommend it for medical reasons either.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher

Worldwide, that is not the case. That's only the case where circumcision is the norm, because it's..."normal" there.

Not even in the whole US, either. In the western US the circumcision rate for newborns is in the low 30s (percentage)

Overall, the US circumcision rate for newborns has dropped to ~60% from a high of 85% in the 70s and early 80s

In Canada it's dropped from 80% to 25% over the same period

Progress

[Asher]

Originally posted by Sava
And to PWN you on the HIV stuff:

from my AMA link:

kTHX

That doesn't PWN me. Every single one of those studies were done in Africa with many, many confounding factors that do not indicate a causal relationship. That's why there is no consistent answer on if it helps, because it's inconclusive...and completely pointless if you use a condom anyway.

[Sava]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Wow. What a great point. Except that Dr Strangelove didn't post any studies either.

The difference being, this is his area of expertise... he's allow to talk from his ass.

Just because I don't feel like spending 5 minutes googling for reputable studies doesn't mean they don't exist.

Lazy ass.

You maroon.

HOW DID YOU KNOW MY TRUE IDENTITY?

Babe Siebert

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Sava
As I said, the ladies prefer it.

By the time you have a child the circumcision rate for newborns in the US might well be under 50%. What do you think that the "ladies" will prefer when the norm is to be uncircumcised, especially when you take into account the fact that women have, in general, more pleasurable experiences with circumcised men?