Is there any ridiculous claim anti-circumcision activists won't make?

http://www.nbc10.com/health/1808693/detail.html
Foreskin Face Cream and Other Beauty Products of the Future | Environment | AlterNet
Foreskins For Sale
Where do all the Foreskins Go?

Why are you so adamant about being dismissive when you don't know what the fuck you are talking about?

Yes, MOST human tissue is incinerated, but the portion that is used for research and cosmetics is huge monetarily. The doctor (whose duty is to the infant) gets to advise the parents that "circ is good," charge for the procedure, and then collect a handling fee for the amputated human body parts, and he/she is not required to disclose the deal to the parents, and is certainly not required to compensate the unwilling donor. The hospital can also collect large sums for handling.

In fact it is illegal (in the US at least) for the donor or family to be compensated, but it's allowed for the doctor to make a killing and keep it secret. THAT needs to change, and I dare you to disagree regardless of how you feel about foreskin amputation.

I struggled to not post, because arguing on the internet never gets anywhere.

But when you compare female circumcision (which is the complete removal of the clitoris) with male (which is just a small chunk of foreskin), you are comparing 2 different things, and it's exactly what OP was getting at.

Circumcision Doesn't Reduce Sexual Satisfaction And Performance, Says Study Of 4,500 Men

98% of males had no sensitivity loss. Of the 2%, there were other factors at play, caused from skin and/or blood disorders and things of the like.

From all I've read, there seems to be no positive, or negative effects from circumcision. based of these things, why do you care so much if someone else gets cut or not? The only negative effects I've seen are people that bitch about having something they can't have.

Don't bring up the real world's opinion around the restoration fanatics!; that isn't what they want to hear. Just keep reassuring them that they made the right decision, and encourage them to keep seeing their therapist.

Again, you're not seeing the point: any study which doesn't confirm what the restorationists believe is a lie.

You make a good point. But I am even more against one small group of people dictating to others based upon an over-reaction.

Especially a silly, unimportant, and stupid over-reaction that has no scientific evidence behind it.

Parents have authority over their children's bodies... sorry, but its true.
They choose to have us innoculated, they make critical medical decisions in times of accident, injury or illness.

I know a woman who got a heart transplant at 7... should her parents have waited?

Its entirely possible that if I had not gotten tetanus shots and polio vaccine I would have lived my whole life without getting either...
And getting the shots DID expose me to a very small risk...
Were my parents criminal in exercising that authority?

Was the government wrong to mandate small pox vaccinations even though a tiny percentage would fall ill from them?
Of course not... based upon good science, they eradicated smallpox... saving millions of lives world wide.

The same GOOD science shows an epidemiological benefit from circumcision in the face of world wide epidemic of in incurable and fatal disease.



Criminalizing circumcision is idiotic because it will lead to the erosion of all parental authority over their children... and leave our personal welfare in the hands of the State.

And we all know what a great job THEY do at watching out for the little ones...

Your parents have a genetic stake in your survival and your success. They operate in your interest when you are too young to do so, based upon their understanding of what will benefit you.



Wrong. AGAIN. Really... you gotta stay on top of things... They don't base this on 3 measly studies... but on over 50.
The 3 cited by the evangelical anti-circ crowd are the ones they cherry pick for being ambiguious.... but if you read what the SCIENTISTS say about the ambiguous studies, they are methodologically flawed.

Properly controlled and corrected studies ( for example, home circumcisions with a piece of flint by a witch doctor who has HIV don't really count) show a clear benefit.


Actually, recent research suggests that the skin inside the foreskin may be particularly susceptible to certain viral binders... being rich in the surface proteins which viruses use to enter.

Also posited is that the area between glans and foreskin is like a warm, damp petrie dish full of shed skin cells, traces of urine, semen and vaginal juices... a breeding ground for disease organisms...

( yeah yeah- not if you clean it 5 times a day... but, really, men are not world famous for their immaculate hygiene)



See... this is exactly what I mean by lying. You may not realize that this is a lie... but it is. You take a finding out of context and imply a causal connection...

Yes cut men in africa have 6 times the transmission rate... but UNCUT men have 9 times the transmission rate.
And the transmission rate is high because MOST african men have at least TWO mistresses in addtion to their wife, or wives.
These additional concurrent sexual partners dramatically increase the transmission of all STDs.... especially HIV.

Imagine your computer is connected to two other computers... which are each attached to two others... the risk of a virus is fairly low. Now imagine your computer is connected to 4 others, each of which is connected to 4 others... do the math... the possible lines of connection are exponentially greater. And the risk of viral infection is almost unavoidable.

This is why Macs don't get viruses ( too few connections) and why PC are plagued with them.


So, please.... stop citing numbers out of context and pretending you know what they mean.

More importantly... stop skimming over studies with the express purpose of supporting your agenda... The WHO is endorsing circumcision... where it is practiced clinically it has shown dramatic effect.


NO... my parents had the right to make a determination based upon medical advice that said I would, A- not recall the trauma, and B- be less likely to contract syphilis.

I am glad they did... I am perfectly happy with my dick...I am not missing anything...


If you are uncut.... then you have your rights... what the hell are you fighting for?
As to your fellow man... I am one of them and I am telling you I don't need you to tell me what my rights are, nor how I should live.

And as to welfare... you have not demeonstrated one iota of "welfare" from having a foreskin... just a bunch of hot air and personal obsessions unsupported by any competent research.

Sorry... your "BELIEFS" are not an adequate basis for enforcing those beliefs on others thru law.


( and yet giving underage girls breast augmentations is legal)

Oh, please... do not even TRY and equate clitorectomy with circumcision...

Clitorectomy ( what is actually against the law) is the purposeful de-sexualizing of girls... its meant to prevent them from having pleasure from sex.
Not even remotely similar to removing a vestigial and useless flap of skin from around the pretty part of a dick.

To equate them is just another example of the lies and exaggerations and misrepresentations that the "ban circumcision" crowd stoops to in furtherance of their fanatical agenda.


really... I don't NEED you to fight for me. I'm fine. My son's are fine.

I am probably one of the most pro-foreskin guys on this website, but rarely engage in the debate because it's endless, all good points are made in the first two pages anyway, and, frankly, there are much more important things to worry about.

And for the record, as the resident expert on HIV here at LPSG, the only proven and reliable way to prevent transmission of HIV is to use a condom when engaging in vaginal and/or anal sex outside the bounds of a long-term, mutually exclusive relationship involving two HIV negative individuals.

Circumcision offers no better protection from HIV transmission than clutching a rabbit's foot while fucking. Really.

Circumcision causes aggression and misogyny.

Seriously, the guy who started being aggressive at NJX, made the comment that we should leave guys alone with what they do with their cocks - sorry? It is precisely the fact that the choice is taken away from them that is the issue for many. There must be a name for this deliberate mendacity.

Then the person who makes the claim that FGM (female genital mutilation) is not comparable because they remove everything, well again you are wrong, there are different levels, as there are with the tightness of cut in MGM (male genital mutilation).

...

a tight cut, then, it equal to the complete removal of the clitoris?

again, you are proving OP's point.

No - you made a statement and it is wrong.

There are several levels of FGM, you said there was only one, and you are wrong.

Circumcision is a form of genital mutilation, like it or not. Not as bad as full FGM, I grant you, but mutilation none the less.

Adding to Drifterwood's reply:

There are different degrees of FGM. A rather minor form is a mere removal of the clitoral hood, sometimes called "sunni circumcision". That type would be analogous to male circumcision. Most other forms of FGM are much more destructive and therefore not analogous.

No matter how minor or severe -- Type I thr. Type IV -- they're all often termed "female genital mutilation".

Really? Care to enlighten us all, and give everyone the reader's digest version of my claims and what's so baseless, exaggerated, or an outright and knowing lie?

True; what you do with your penis is YOUR BUSINESS, NOBODY else's. It doesn't even deserve serious discussion.

How about what you do with someone else's penis, without that person's permission?

Mlle, respect intended. It's not really funny. If they were making cosmetics out of little bits of baby girls, you would be up in arms in a heartbeat.

It causes acne.

It caused the war in Iraq, cause the president was trimmed pretty severely.

Oh now I see: you mean exactly the same as a vagina..