Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: MillCreek on December 02, 2014, 10:27:35 AM
-
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d18e670cfdbe48f1963be0790dab9474/cdc-circumcision-benefits-outweigh-risks
Enthusiasm for the medical benefits of circumcision has waxed and waned over the years. In recent years, clinical benefit for the procedure has been on the upswing.
-
The swelling consensus for circumcision will be cut off short by the demographic producing the most boy children in American hospitals, who have no use for the practice.
-
The swelling consensus for circumcision will be cut off short by the demographic producing the most boy children in American hospitals, who have no use for the practice.
I'm lost. What demographic is that?
-
I'm lost. What demographic is that?
South of the border crowd not too keen on circumcision.
-
The swelling consensus for circumcision will be cut off short . . .
I see what you did there.
-
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d18e670cfdbe48f1963be0790dab9474/cdc-circumcision-benefits-outweigh-risks
Enthusiasm for the medical benefits of circumcision has waxed and waned over the years. In recent years, clinical benefit for the procedure has been on the upswing.
Things like this, and the constant waffling over eggs, and the low fat diet scam that contributed to america's obesity epidemic, the utter lack of evidence for the harmfulness of salt etc etc are why I think it's such a mistake to equate "The latest research shows" with "This is a true thing."
-
^^^Or another way of looking at it is that the truth can change over time based on additional research and that is the nature of the beast in evidence-based medical care. Some of the research coming out recently about Advanced Coronary Life Support just flabbergasts me because it has the potential to overturn decades of established practice.
-
^^^Or another way of looking at it is that the truth can change over time based on additional research and that is the nature of the beast in evidence-based medical care. Some of the research coming out recently about Advanced Coronary Life Support just flabbergasts me because it has the potential to overturn decades of established practice.
No. The truth is a constant. What is accepted as truth changes all the time though, which is why the people who say "This is our best understanding at this time" and substitute it for "This is true" drive me crazy.
-
I love how they state a complication rate of 0.5%...apparently excising a big arbitrary chuck of the organ is declared "not a complication".
The practice is not going to silently go away...it generates hundreds of millions of dollars in easy revenue every year, plus more money later in viagra when what they left attached quits trying. And contemporary society has shown that it is reluctant to consider males, no matter how defenseless, to be victims. After all since all copulation is rape, genital mutilation seems like deserved punishment.
-
I love how they state a complication rate of 0.5%...apparently excising a big arbitrary chuck of the organ is declared "not a complication".
The practice is not going to silently go away...it generates hundreds of millions of dollars in easy revenue every year, plus more money later in viagra when what they left attached quits trying. And contemporary society has shown that it is reluctant to consider males, no matter how defenseless, to be victims. After all since all copulation is rape, genital mutilation seems like deserved punishment.
circumcision =/= amputation
-
Circumcision is to FGM what the American "War on Women" is to Muslims stoning female rape victims.
-
I love how they state a complication rate of 0.5%...apparently excising a big arbitrary chuck of the organ is declared "not a complication".
The practice is not going to silently go away...it generates hundreds of millions of dollars in easy revenue every year, plus more money later in viagra when what they left attached quits trying. And contemporary society has shown that it is reluctant to consider males, no matter how defenseless, to be victims. After all since all copulation is rape, genital mutilation seems like deserved punishment.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frevdisk.org%2Fstorage%2Fnotsure.jpg&hash=c2d80d714bf108a69fc926d476844cc9186c4d30)
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frevdisk.org%2Fstorage%2Fnotsure.jpg&hash=c2d80d714bf108a69fc926d476844cc9186c4d30)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reactiongifs.us%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F11%2Fyoure_serious_futurama.gif&hash=266970a59c1491a13edeaec7cd032710b80f8a3a)
-
The original benefit was supposed to be prevention of masturbation. I'm pretty sure we all know how that worked out.
Personally, I find the pro-circumcision arguments rather laughable. Even if you are hung like Mr. Ed, it really isn't that hard to clean. And if some Africans can't figure out how to do it, I am really not sure why US needs to follow their example.
Also, I have to giggle at how often the pro-circ people are usually the same ones grousing about the silliness of ear tunnels and piercings. Body mods are body mods.
-
The original benefit was supposed to be prevention of masturbation.
According to who? ???
Also, I have to giggle at how often the pro-circ people are usually the same ones grousing about the silliness of ear tunnels and piercings. Body mods are body mods.
Um, no, there are a number of different reasons for body modification. Bypass surgery, for example, is not the same kind of "body mod" as a cosmetic nose-piercing.
-
The original benefit was supposed to be prevention of masturbation. I'm pretty sure we all know how that worked out.
I must have missed that verse.
-
According to who? ???
Dr. Kellogg and the rest of the quacks who popularized it in the US.
Um, no, there are a number of different reasons for body modification. Bypass surgery, for example, is not the same kind of "body mod" as a cosmetic nose-piercing.
Bypass surgery? Seriously? :rofl:
-
Dr. Kellogg and the rest of the quacks who popularized it in the US.
Wow, I had no idea that circumcision was invented in the late 1800's in America to combat masturbation. Thanks for clearing that up.
-
Things like this, and the constant waffling over eggs, and the low fat diet scam that contributed to america's obesity epidemic, the utter lack of evidence for the harmfulness of salt etc etc are why I think it's such a mistake to equate "The latest research shows" with "This is a true thing."
yup! I agree, since eliminating "low fat" I've lost weight - low carb/high fat lots of meat.... "I'll take steak an eggs mam, no toast or potatos - extra coffee" :laugh:
-
Bypass surgery, for example, is not the same kind of "body mod" as a cosmetic nose-piercing.
Somebody needs to study up on the distinction between therapeutic, prophylactic, and cosmetic reasons for surgery.
Routine neonatal circumcision is allegedly prophylactic (actually cosmetic in most cases). Surgery to remove body parts for prophylaxis is drastic and unheard of except in this particular case. Back when they used to remove tonsils all the time, at least they left you alone until you got sick.
It is well-known why routine neonatal circumcision became widespread...early-industrial-age medical quackery, nothing more. Baby girls were not spared; Kellogg recommended dripping acid on their clitorus (of course before they were old enough so as to make holding them down difficult). The objective was the same...destroy the maximum amount of erogenous tissue while leaving the victim mechanically able to procreate. The reason routine neonatal circumcision persists in the US is manyfold
1) men who were themselves mutilated as infants, and don't want to admit that they were harmed, and despite (or perhaps because) having no point of reference since the decision to amputate the interesting structures of their penis was made for them, they decide they prefer an abbreviated organ as a coping mechanism
2)"they did it to me when I was defenseless, so now that I am the one in power I am going to do it to you (lest you get off easier than I did)" (this attitude is is also prevalent in pedagogy)
3) it's $300 adder to otherwise routine births, that insurance pays for. Yes I do think humanity in general and the medical field in particular is depraved enough to perpetuate a useless and disfiguring procedure through pure banal profit motive. Follow the money. When the mutilations stopped being covered in the UK the establishment all of a sudden decided it wasn't so necessary after all.
-
2)"they did it to me when I was defenseless, so now that I am the one in power I am going to do it to you (lest you get off easier than I did)" (this attitude is is also prevalent in pedagogy)
And the military.
And the field of government regulation.
-
Every year on January first, I have a high old time of it celebrating the Feast of the Circumcision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feast_of_the_Circumcision_of_Christ
I'm not signing this one so nobody will know who posted it.
-
Don't try to fix what ain't broke ;)
Alternatives to circumcision (that achieve the same benefits the CDC purports):
1)Wear a condom... or better yet, don't have sex with people you don't know really well.
2)Retract foreskin and wash glans every time you take a shower. Unless you plan to wander around the desert for decades on end, this shouldn't be a problem.
-
Wow, I had no idea that circumcision was invented in the late 1800's in America to combat masturbation. Thanks for clearing that up.
Popularized and Invented aren't the same thing.
-
So is there some sort of data someone gathered to estimate the numbers of circumcisions performed before and after Dr. Cornflakes?
-
Wow, I had no idea that circumcision was invented in the late 1800's in America to combat masturbation. Thanks for clearing that up.
Did you see the word "invented" in anything that I wrote? I said that it became popular in US specifically for that reason.
Circumcision was invented by primitive people in warm regions. Today, in the US, it's really no different than the "tribal" tattoos, plugs, scarification, or any other "modern primitive" body modification - cosmetic surgery to emulate a ritual practice from some tribes.
Seems to me the truth is uncomfortable for you.
-
Ironic that
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Maybe circumcision made sense in the preindustrial world before there was running water in every home. Or in a world where the causes of disease were mysterious and the practice of sanitation and personal hygiene weren't widespread. Plenty of cultures prospered without the practice so that is a big maybe.
Christianity being primarily a Jewish sect early on probably had a lot of gentiles adopt the practice as a matter of identifying with their new community . Despite the fact the bible clearly states that gentiles are not required to be circumcised. Once it became the norm, men and women would want their baby boy to fit in and not be considered different. I think it is all primarily cultural with religious roots.
In today's world I consider it a barbaric practice.
-
Seems to me the truth is uncomfortable for you.
:rofl:
Yes, your mangling of historical facts and zahc's wild hyperbole are really rustling my jimmies.
-
:rofl:
Yes, your mangling of historical facts and zahc's wild hyperbole are really rustling my jimmies.
Your reading comprehension fail aside, what historical fact did I mangle?
-
In today's world I consider it a barbaric practice.
✔
Things like this, and the constant waffling over eggs, and the low fat diet scam that contributed to america's obesity epidemic, the utter lack of evidence for the harmfulness of salt etc etc are why I think it's such a mistake to equate "The latest research shows" with "This is a true thing."
I am also getting tired of all this See-Saw "Science."
-
Subtitle of this thread should be: gayer than a bunch of guys concerned about other guys' wieners.
I personally don't have any skin in this whole controversy.
-
In today's world I consider it a barbaric practice.
Maybe you should try to get a law passed to ban it!
=)
-
Maybe you should try to get a law passed to ban it!
=)
All I have is an opinion, I have no skin in the game either :rofl:
-
Did you see the word "invented" in anything that I wrote? I said that it became popular in US specifically for that reason.
Circumcision was invented by primitive people in warm regions. Today, in the US, it's really no different than the "tribal" tattoos, plugs, scarification, or any other "modern primitive" body modification - cosmetic surgery to emulate a ritual practice from some tribes.
Seems to me the truth is uncomfortable for you.
Your story about the breakfast cereal magnate is neat, and everything, but hardly seems relevant. The OP cited recent studies. In other words, no one is taking Kellog's word for it. Who's even still aware of the guy, aside from his menu suggestions? Besides that, you have the people that do it for religious reasons, which are hardly Kellog's doing.
Circumcision might be a cosmetic surgery - if one is raised in a nudist colony. Or if a parent's primary motivation is make their son's equipment more visually appealing to his future intimates. So, practically never.
Seems to me this topic makes you uncomfortable, and prone to logical gaffes. =|
-
1) men who were themselves mutilated as infants, and don't want to admit that they were harmed, and despite (or perhaps because) having no point of reference since the decision to amputate the interesting structures of their penis was made for them, they decide they prefer an abbreviated organ as a coping mechanism
2)"they did it to me when I was defenseless, so now that I am the one in power I am going to do it to you (lest you get off easier than I did)" (this attitude is is also prevalent in pedagogy)
This is a public forum, so I'll just say that the exact opposite dynamic is playing out in my family history.
And FWIW, I'll wager most people have never heard of, or thought of, circumcision having any effect on the male orgasm. What leads you to believe this is a motivating factor?
-
Bypass surgery? Seriously? :rofl:
Of course seriously. I was pointing out the differences between major, life-saving cardiac surgery, versus circumcision, or cosmetic body-piercing. You think they're all the same?
-
Besides that, you have the people that do it for religious reasons, which are hardly Kellog's doing.
The percentage of whom in the general population is rather small. I really doubt the majority of Americans doing it are doing because Jews are so cool and they want to be just like them.
The OP cited recent studies.
Which were done in Africa, and I find to be of dubious relevance to modern day US.
Seems to me this topic makes you uncomfortable, and prone to logical gaffes.
Not uncomfortable in the least. It's not a thing in my family. We are not Jewish, do not suffer from excessive masturbation, and know how to use soap and water. =D
If either one of my boys decides they want one for some reason, I won't be bothered in the least.
Of course seriously. I was pointing out the differences between major, life-saving cardiac surgery, versus circumcision, or cosmetic body-piercing. You think they're all the same?
No,I think circumcision and piercing are equally cosmetic, and bypass surgery is not at all like either one, and your bringing it up is utterly silly. I've said so pretty explicitly, so I think you are only pretending not to understand.
Still want to know what facts I mangled.
-
The percentage of whom in the general population is rather small. I really doubt the majority of Americans doing it are doing because Jews are so cool and they want to be just like them.
Which [studies] were done in Africa, and I find to be of dubious relevance to modern day US.
Both of these "rebuttals" are irrelevant. Let's review. You tried to claim that a long-gone, largely forgotten health nut is responsible for circumcision in the modern day. This was, of course, called out as perfect nonsense. As an aside, I noted how this thread itself refutes your Kellog argument, as you are the only one calling Kellog as a witness. No one who is pro-circ, or (like me) neutral, is citing his expertise. Also as an aside, I noted that religious reasons are also in play, regardless how significant you claim their numbers may be. I never said that religion is the major factor in most cases, and it is dishonest of you to imply that I did.
No,I think circumcision and piercing are equally cosmetic, and bypass surgery is not at all like either one, and your bringing it up is utterly silly. I've said so pretty explicitly, so I think you are only pretending not to understand.
You said "body mods are body mods," and I only brought up bypass surgery to demonstrate the absurdity of your claim. Bypass surgery, like the vast majority of circumcisions, is not cosmetic. I'm not the one saying they are the same thing. You are. Or were. You've retracted the claim, so I guess it worked. =)
Still want to know what facts I mangled.
Ask Balog.
-
. Bypass surgery, like the vast majority of circumcisions, is not cosmetic.
Eh, I might need to go with a "citation needed" there Fistful. Bypass surgery is a literally lifesaving event. I am unaware of any life threatening conditions circumcision alleviates. On this one part I kinda agree with WH. It's a cosmetic modification that (in my circle of acquaintances) is mostly done for religious reasons.
I really don't care, as I don't plan on having kids. I wouldn't go so far as to call it "Barbaric" but I don't really see the need either. It's just another one of those things that Americans sometimes do.
-
Where do you get the idea that "not cosmetic" is the same as "for life threatening conditions"?
-
Where do you get the idea that "not cosmetic" is the same as "for life threatening conditions"?
I didn't. I was directly comparing the two procedures (and only those two) mentioned.
Heart Bypass: Life saving. If you need one and don't get it you will die, right now.
Circumcision: Seems cosmetic to me. Even if religiously motivated. The original cleanliness motivations seem to have been overcome by modern society.
I did ask if he knew of serious conditions that snipping would help. I guess I would amend that to "common" serious conditions.
Hell get one if you want. I'm not that invested, it just seems to me that it's a primarily cosmetic body mod.
-
Heart Bypass: Life saving. If you need one and don't get it you will die, right now.
Wait, are we talking about heart bypass surgery or gastric bypass surgery?
-
Wait, are we talking about heart bypass surgery or gastric bypass surgery?
You know, going back Fistful just said "bypass surgery". My wife's a vascular ICU nurse so I defaulted to what she means when she talks about a "bypass".
If Fistful meant gastric bypass, that's a little different. I confess I don't know a whole bunch about what it takes to be medically qualified for gastric bypass, and if it's more "I want to be skinnier" or "You'll die of heart disease in 2 years without this".
Still think circumcision in modern American is predominantly cosmetic. Maybe on a par with .....I dunno, maybe breast implants? Something accepted, not unhealthy, but not needed either.
-
I agree it is cosmetic as in unneccessary and elective (except to baby boys who have it forced on them while strapped down), but calling it "cosmetic" makes it sound harmless, which is why I prefer 'mutilation' or 'genital reduction surgery'. As if the procedure itself wasn't enough of a "complication", there are real chances of complete total disfunction and death. But it reduces the risk of urinary tract infections!
http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/myths-about-circumcision-you-likely-believe
-
Soap and water is well and good, but that assumes that the kid knows how to clean himself. We get a lot of boys in the 7-16 range that get some gnarly infections from inadequate (or nonexistent) hygiene.
Cosmetic or not, circumcision still has hygienic benefits.
-
Soap and water is well and good, but that assumes that the kid knows how to clean himself. We get a lot of boys in the 7-16 range that get some gnarly infections from inadequate (or nonexistent) hygiene.
I am afraid to ask where this is.
-
First, to set the record straight on a couple of things:
White Horseradish (unwittingly) equated circumcision with cardiac bypass surgery, by claiming that circumcision is a "body mod," like ear gauging, and that "body mods are body mods." I thought it would go without saying that circumcision is NOT like the body modification involved in cardiac bypass surgery. He later seems to have gone back on his claim, as it's been made clear that body modifications are done for different reasons, and with different effects. I won't bother explaining how getting your infant kid circumcised is different from sumdood getting a flaming skull tattoo, as it really is obvious.
I agree it is cosmetic as in unneccessary and elective (except to baby boys who have it forced on them while strapped down), but calling it "cosmetic" makes it sound harmless, which is why I prefer 'mutilation' or 'genital reduction surgery'.
Circumcision: Seems cosmetic to me. Even if religiously motivated. The original cleanliness motivations seem to have been overcome by modern society.
Cosmetic doesn't mean unnecessary or elective. Nor does it mean "motivated by religious or health concerns."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cosmetic
adjective
3.
serving to beautify; imparting or improving beauty, especially of the face.
4.
used or done superficially to make something look better, more attractive, or more impressive:
As I've already pointed out, circumcising one's infant child couldn't be considered cosmetic, unless the parent's chief motive is improving the appearance, the looks, the style of the kid's undercarriage. =| And I think we can all agree that would be a rare, to non-existent, motive.
To be fair, Webster's add another definition.
: used or done in order to improve a person's appearance
: done in order to make something look better
: not important or meaningful
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cosmetic
If you buy that definition, and if you think circumcision is a harmless, meaningless procedure, then you might call it cosmetic. Our anti-circumcisionist-in-chief obviously disagrees. That wouldn't touch the religious motives, though. You may not believe in a person's religious purpose in circumcising their kid, but you can't say it's not meaningful.
I did ask if he knew of serious conditions that snipping would help. I guess I would amend that to "common" serious conditions.
Again, let's go back to the OP. A number of health benefits have (wrongly or rightly) been claimed for circumcision. I didn't think I had to explain those, either.