Queries about circumcision

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Relish in Chaos:

Hammeroj:
The only reason your parents, and their parents, did it is because of some whacked out religious belief/tradition that has little place in modern society.

Except that some people, regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof, have to do it for medical reasons where there's no ultimately sufficient alternative.

For more info, check this site out: http://www.circinfo.com/index.html

Circinfo is a FETISH SITE led by a LUNATIC.

http://www.circleaks.org/index.php?title=Brian_J._Morris

He says that a secret gay cabal of men is controlling the world and making circumcision "unattractive" so they can have fun with the foreskins. He is an absolute raving lunatic without any evidence to back up his claims.

Circlist is also a site tied to him

check your sources, check your facts.

Ultratwinkie:

Relish in Chaos:
Snip.

We don't treat infections with circumcisions anymore. That is medievil/Civil War Medical logic. That's been outdated for centuries.

We treat infections with antibiotics, which is much cheaper, and less invasive. I know this from personal experience.

Now onto pleasure. There are very few scientific studies on circumcision, and most of the studies supporting circumcision try to bullshit their way into the medical community by using samples as low as 50, and restricting themselves to one tribe in Africa.

These studies have been thrown out.
You can have this link though:

http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

Personally, I say you were lied to.

I suggest looking up a condition known as Balanitis xerotica obliterans which is still treated mainly by circumcision.

Matthew94:

MASTACHIEFPWN:

Matthew94:

That logic is pretty flawed. You are happy having part of your body cut off because you don't want to take a few seconds in the shower to wash yourself?

I don't mind it at all. It's a useless body part, much like an appendix. (Though I've never heard of foreskin exploading...)

It doesn't make me any less human to have a bit of skin cut off, and if thoust thinks it does, well you can honestly go fuck yourself.

And on another topic of how useless this argument is- The makes sex less pleasurable/ more is completely based on oppenion.
The only problem I see with it is if a child somehow dies from the procudure, and well, life sucks anyway.

I think that's pretty horrible, you are ok with risking the life of a child for the reasons of "just because" and "it saves me time washing".

Yup!
Because guess what, the amount of deaths compaired to circumscisions is very low. If the parent is educated enough about the procedure, and willing to take the risk, why not?

Listen: No one is benifiting from arguments like this. They are pointless wastes of time. It should be left to the parent- and the parent alone for something like this, until the kid becomes humanly councious.
You act as if parents shouldn't make any decisions for their children. What if a parent allows their child to ride the school bus, and it magically exploads and kills the child?

Now, I've got a terrible headache and using my brain (If you'd call it that) is only making it worse. You are entilted to your oppenion, and hell, if you feel so strongly about this, write a letter to your local representitive, tell them your concerns. Honestly, I'd leave this decision up to my spouse, because I really couldn't care less.

Speaking as somebody who was circumcised as an adult (10 weeks ago as of tomorrow, in fact, and for a medical purpose), the only real difference is that now I have to use some lube when I'm spanking one out.

As far as sensitivity goes, I haven't noticed too much of a difference, although any contact with my glans for about 4 weeks post-op felt like it had been poked with a cattle prod. Very, very sensitive. I was informed by my urologist that the change in sensitivity after an adult operation varies from person to person, from penis to penis.

anthony87:

See I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum. My foreskin doesn't go back over my head. Like....at all so I've been wondering to myself if I could give circumcision a looksee.

Hey, mate, mine didn't retract at all either, so I know full well what that's like. If you want to talk about that, or circumcision, or anything else, feel free to send me a PM. You're never the only one!

bobbyprincess:

Ultratwinkie:

Relish in Chaos:
Snip.

We don't treat infections with circumcisions anymore. That is medievil/Civil War Medical logic. That's been outdated for centuries.

We treat infections with antibiotics, which is much cheaper, and less invasive. I know this from personal experience.

Now onto pleasure. There are very few scientific studies on circumcision, and most of the studies supporting circumcision try to bullshit their way into the medical community by using samples as low as 50, and restricting themselves to one tribe in Africa.

These studies have been thrown out.
You can have this link though:

http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

Personally, I say you were lied to.

I suggest looking up a condition known as Balanitis xerotica obliterans which is still treated mainly by circumcision.

That infection doesn't even have a full percent chance of happening. it has a .005% chance of happening. Its a non-issue.

Slayer_2:

anthony87:
See I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum. My foreskin doesn't go back over my head. Like....at all so I've been wondering to myself if I could give circumcision a looksee.

Even when you're erect?! Sounds painful. Maybe a case where circumcision could be a good idea. Just make sure you have soft underpants for afterwards, first few weeks will be awkward.

Nah it's not painful at all. Which is why I'm unsure about circumcision in the first place. I'm considering going to see a urologist once college is done for the summer to get a professional opinion but I'd really rather not have to get the chop.

I've not got anything against circumcision, I just dread the thoughts of those first few weeks you mentioned.

MASTACHIEFPWN:

Matthew94:

MASTACHIEFPWN:
I don't mind it at all. It's a useless body part, much like an appendix. (Though I've never heard of foreskin exploading...)

It doesn't make me any less human to have a bit of skin cut off, and if thoust thinks it does, well you can honestly go fuck yourself.

And on another topic of how useless this argument is- The makes sex less pleasurable/ more is completely based on oppenion.
The only problem I see with it is if a child somehow dies from the procudure, and well, life sucks anyway.

I think that's pretty horrible, you are ok with risking the life of a child for the reasons of "just because" and "it saves me time washing".

Yup!
Because guess what, the amount of deaths compaired to circumscisions is very low. If the parent is educated enough about the procedure, and willing to take the risk, why not?

Listen: No one is benifiting from arguments like this. They are pointless wastes of time. It should be left to the parent- and the parent alone for something like this, until the kid becomes humanly councious.
You act as if parents shouldn't make any decisions for their children. What if a parent allows their child to ride the school bus, and it magically exploads and kills the child?

Now, I've got a terrible headache and using my brain (If you'd call it that) is only making it worse. You are entilted to your oppenion, and hell, if you feel so strongly about this, write a letter to your local representitive, tell them your concerns. Honestly, I'd leave this decision up to my spouse, because I really couldn't care less.

*opinion

I don't care if the number of deaths is low. There shouldn't be deaths for a procedure that has no benefits (other than saving 1m in the shower) especially on a person who hasn't consented to it.

If the parent was educated they would likely abstain from having the procedure performed on their child and leaving it up to them.

Your bus analogy is terrible. Vehicles have risks but have direct benefits which are to get the person to the other location in a time much smaller than walking.

Ultratwinkie:

bobbyprincess:

Ultratwinkie:

We don't treat infections with circumcisions anymore. That is medievil/Civil War Medical logic. That's been outdated for centuries.

We treat infections with antibiotics, which is much cheaper, and less invasive. I know this from personal experience.

Now onto pleasure. There are very few scientific studies on circumcision, and most of the studies supporting circumcision try to bullshit their way into the medical community by using samples as low as 50, and restricting themselves to one tribe in Africa.

These studies have been thrown out.
You can have this link though:

http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

Personally, I say you were lied to.

I suggest looking up a condition known as Balanitis xerotica obliterans which is still treated mainly by circumcision.

That infection doesn't even have a full percent chance of happening. it has a .005% chance of happening. Its a non-issue.

If it's such a non issue how come I and from the sounds of it two other people on this very thread have suffered from it?

Matthew94:
Why do a cosmetic surgery with no benefits (other than saving a minute in the shower) and put a child at risk of death?

Why perform any seemingly unnecessary medical process on a child when the risks and rewards have to be considered? Intentionally putting your kids in rooms with kids who have chicken pox so they catch it while they're young come with certain risks, but we still bloody do it! Why let an underage person, who legally can't make those kinds of decisions get an ear piercing with the consent of the parent? Suddenly that's OK?

Look, the actually trained, educated, medical professionals will sit down with parents and discuss the risks and rewards of circumcision. I have but the entire official stance of the American Medical Associations opinion on circumcision to work with, and they leave it up to the parents; seems good enough for me.

Matthew94:
You may say it is due to malpractice but the fact remains that pointless deaths do take place. If they weren't put through it (likely without consent) those children would still be alive today.

It's really the argument itself that I find utterly ridiculous; you can't suggest ending a process when your argument rests on the notion that it fails because people do it wrong. Seriously, think about the legitimacy of that argument for a minute or two.

anthony87:

Slayer_2:

anthony87:
See I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum. My foreskin doesn't go back over my head. Like....at all so I've been wondering to myself if I could give circumcision a looksee.

Even when you're erect?! Sounds painful. Maybe a case where circumcision could be a good idea. Just make sure you have soft underpants for afterwards, first few weeks will be awkward.

Nah it's not painful at all. Which is why I'm unsure about circumcision in the first place. I'm considering going to see a urologist once college is done for the summer to get a professional opinion but I'd really rather not have to get the chop.

I've not got anything against circumcision, I just dread the thoughts of those first few weeks you mentioned.

You can get your foreskin loosened slightly with a surgery rather than cutting the whole thing off.

I think circumcision that is not medically mandated (as stated by a certified doctor) should be illegal to perform / have performed on children under 18.
In the case of Sweden, I think laws should be imposed that would ban the practice of circumcision on people under 18 years of age.
Laws that could get parents prosecuted in case a child under 18 is discovered with circumcised genitalia that was not medically mandated should also be instated in order to get at the practice of "circumcision tourism".

I believe that the children should be able to choose for themselves which religious faith they wish to belong to and that this must occur at an age where the child is more likely to have an informed opinion.
Having a permanent change to your body in the name of religion can't be justified in any way, shape or form, unless you are in a position where you can reliably grant your consent to it.

For a personal story... I have been baptized when I was young. As an atheist, I find that utterly appalling and I'm constantly a bit upset with my parents for going through with it.
Now, imagine that, instead of having water splashed on my head, someone cut off a piece of me, meaning that I have a visual reminder of it every time I needed to pee...
...I don't think I'd have the happy relation to my parents I have today.

To say the least.

Matthew94:
I thought I made it pretty clear, it would apply to all procedures.

If they consent, do it.

If they do not, don't do it.

If they can't consent but need the surgery, do it.

If they can't consent but don't need the surgery, don't do it.

So you don't think that issues of competence to determine one's participation in medical procedures should be an issue? It's just whatever the patient says yes to, unless he's incapable of responding, in which case the doctor decides?

Reginald the Butler:
On a side note, it is rather odd the most of the circumcised posters seem pretty "meh" about the procedure, while, what I assume are the uncircumcised posters, seem to be the ones who are up-in-arms.

That is because they know we are coming for them in the night to circumcise them against their wills with rusty tomahawks.

...Curses! I've let the secret slip! Abort, circumcision ninjas, abort!

MASTACHIEFPWN:
Though I've never heard of foreskin exploding...

I have.

bobbyprincess:

Ultratwinkie:

bobbyprincess:

I suggest looking up a condition known as Balanitis xerotica obliterans which is still treated mainly by circumcision.

That infection doesn't even have a full percent chance of happening. it has a .005% chance of happening. Its a non-issue.

If it's such a non issue how come I and from the sounds of it two other people on this very thread have suffered from it?

Problems with the foreskin are less than 5% of the total population. I could easily say deviated septums are a big issue, but since its an uncommon problem I won't even pretend to advocate septum surgery "just because."

anthony87:

Slayer_2:

anthony87:
See I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum. My foreskin doesn't go back over my head. Like....at all so I've been wondering to myself if I could give circumcision a looksee.

Even when you're erect?! Sounds painful. Maybe a case where circumcision could be a good idea. Just make sure you have soft underpants for afterwards, first few weeks will be awkward.

Nah it's not painful at all. Which is why I'm unsure about circumcision in the first place. I'm considering going to see a urologist once college is done for the summer to get a professional opinion but I'd really rather not have to get the chop.

I've not got anything against circumcision, I just dread the thoughts of those first few weeks you mentioned.

Get it checked out. From the sounds of it you have the same thing I had. I was circumcised and for me the pain after the operation was less than that of a papercut and it was pretty much healed within a week or two. Who knows though, you might get lucky and the cream they are likely to prescribe you might work, which is probably going to be more likely if you catch this thing as soon as possible. Whatever happens if you want to chat about it with me, feel free.

DevilWithaHalo:

Daystar Clarion:
Because children have actually died from a purely cosmetic procedure.

A little perspective.

In every single documented case I've found, it's *ALWAYS* because the procedure wasn't performed properly (at least when talking specifically about male circumcision). Improper training, cutting, utilities, etc. I have *yet* to find a documented case where everything was done by the book and a child died anyway. (And I would be very interested in reading otherwise)

We don't stop procedures based on the fact that things fuck up when you don't do them correctly. The reasoning behind that astounds me.

Your point?

Children have died from a procedure that was not medically necessary.

The fact it was due to malpractice is irrelevant.

JimB:

Matthew94:
I thought I made it pretty clear, it would apply to all procedures.

If they consent, do it.

If they do not, don't do it.

If they can't consent but need the surgery, do it.

If they can't consent but don't need the surgery, don't do it.

So you don't think that issues of competence to determine one's participation in medical procedures should be an issue? It's just whatever the patient says yes to, unless he's incapable of responding, in which case the doctor decides?

Sorry but what? I don't get your point.

Issues of competence, I would assume anyone who is a trained doctor should be competent enough to perform a medical procedure.

Notice how I'm using the word "need".

Matthew94:

anthony87:

Slayer_2:
Even when you're erect?! Sounds painful. Maybe a case where circumcision could be a good idea. Just make sure you have soft underpants for afterwards, first few weeks will be awkward.

Nah it's not painful at all. Which is why I'm unsure about circumcision in the first place. I'm considering going to see a urologist once college is done for the summer to get a professional opinion but I'd really rather not have to get the chop.

I've not got anything against circumcision, I just dread the thoughts of those first few weeks you mentioned.

You can get your foreskin loosened slightly with a surgery rather than cutting the whole thing off.

Yeah I've heard of things like that and steroid creams and such that can loosen the skin. I really should go talk to a urologist about it at some stage. Fingers crossed that a snip wouldn't be necessary.

bobbyprincess:

Get it checked out. From the sounds of it you have the same thing I had. I was circumcised and for me the pain after the operation was less than that of a papercut and it was pretty much healed within a week or two. Who knows though, you might get lucky and the cream they are likely to prescribe you might work, which is probably going to be more likely if you catch this thing as soon as possible. Whatever happens if you want to chat about it with me, feel free.

See that's the rub(heh). I don't know if it's even a "thing". It's just how I've been my whole life.

Ultratwinkie:

bobbyprincess:

Ultratwinkie:

That infection doesn't even have a full percent chance of happening. it has a .005% chance of happening. Its a non-issue.

If it's such a non issue how come I and from the sounds of it two other people on this very thread have suffered from it?

Problems with the foreskin are less than 5% of the total population. I could easily say deviated septums are a big issue, but since its an uncommon problem I won't even pretend to advocate septum surgery "just because."

Ok, I think you've misunderstood what I was getting at. I'm not a supporter of using circumcision as a preventative meassure on people who aren't suffering from a such a condition. However, there are cases where circumcision is a genuine medical treatment, a fact which you dismissed in an earlier post.

I doubt circumcision has any real impact on sexual prowess so you should be okay. People have been getting circumcised for centuries and it doesn't seem to have any major adverse impact. Whether circumcised men are better or worse off... a penis is a penis, sex is sex, it's all fairly simple when you get down to it and worrying about which model "works better" is fairly pointless in the end. Hell, we live in an age where people can and do shove bolts of metal through their cocks and claim it increases stimulation or improves their stamina... look whatever, I'll take their words for it. I think our genitals can handle quite a bit and still work as intended.

That being said circumcision carries a risk of leading to significant nerve damage which can have an impact on sex but whether this is the case for you should be obvious. I don't think it's very common

Back when my father was young circumcision was often an aesthetic choice and had nothing to do with religion or medicine. I would say though, and I imagine most doctors would agree, that removal of the foreskin for anything but medical necessity is not a good idea.

I think there's a lot of misinformation about circumcision and I'm certainly not qualified enough to comment about what's true or not. There are arguments that it is for hygiene and conflicting arguments about whether it increases sexual prowess or not. I think the hygiene argument is fairly flawed though, especially when you consider that the metzitzah b'peh technique of circumcision requires the mohel to suck and even chew lightly on the wound - pretty damn abhorrent practice, not to mention incredibly unhygienic but borne from mistaken bronze-age medical theories that blood must be removed from the wound and saliva had healing qualities. I am, unfortunately, not making that up and it still goes on to this day although thankfully it is not common.

I think circumcision is genital mutilation unless it is required for medicinal reasons. If there is no reason to slice off a part of your body but you do it anyway how is that not mutilation? I've always found it so utterly bizarre that it comes mostly from religion too. Consider their argument that we're all made perfect in God's image except that part which needs to be cut off. Mental. Even more bizarre is that even a mohel can get squeamish at the thought of female circumcision, even the less awful versions, (and it gets pretty awful for some girls, I won't go into it,) and yet see no problems with hacking off the foreskin of a newborn baby because Genesis 17:10-14 said otherwise his 'soul shall be cut off from his people'.

Anyway I've gone into far too much detail and talked about penises for far too long, (I'm clearly procrastinating here,) so I'll leave it at that.

Circumcised myself, medical reasons, too big for my foreskin ;3

Let's see, well I miss some nerves because of it, don't know what I'm missing though. Sex still feels amazing.

Well cut is usually cleaner and tastier, so unless you keep it very clean down there don't expect many to volunteer for it...
For sexual partners, yeah I prefer cut.

Though who gives a flying fuck, just give me a guy that's good in bed.

anthony87:

See that's the rub(heh). I don't know if it's even a "thing". It's just how I've been my whole life.

Well in that case I would still suggest getting it seen to, even if the doc suggests getting the snip, they can't force you into it if you don't think it's necessary.

DevilWithaHalo:

Matthew94:
Why do a cosmetic surgery with no benefits (other than saving a minute in the shower) and put a child at risk of death?

Why perform any seemingly unnecessary medical process on a child when the risks and rewards have to be considered? Intentionally putting your kids in rooms with kids who have chicken pox so they catch it while they're young come with certain risks, but we still bloody do it! Why let an underage person, who legally can't make those kinds of decisions get an ear piercing with the consent of the parent? Suddenly that's OK?

Look, the actually trained, educated, medical professionals will sit down with parents and discuss the risks and rewards of circumcision. I have but the entire official stance of the American Medical Associations opinion on circumcision to work with, and they leave it up to the parents; seems good enough for me.

The reason they leave it up to the parents is because there is no benefits whatsoever. I have no problem if someone consents to it like the aforementioned piercings. They don't just "leave vaccines to the parents", they actively encourage them because they have a benefit.

In the case of chicken pox there is a direct benefit to catching it young as adults are more likely to die than kids are of the disease.

DevilWithaHalo:

Matthew94:
You may say it is due to malpractice but the fact remains that pointless deaths do take place. If they weren't put through it (likely without consent) those children would still be alive today.

It's really the argument itself that I find utterly ridiculous; you can't suggest ending a process when your argument rests on the notion that it fails because people do it wrong. Seriously, think about the legitimacy of that argument for a minute or two.

Actually I can suggest ending it as it has no benefits and puts unconsenting people at risk of death all for a cosmetic surgery.

I don't mind if they consent to it, it's doing it at birth I disagree with.

Matthew94:

I don't care if the number of deaths is low. There shouldn't be deaths for a procedure that has no benefits (other than saving 1m in the shower) especially on a person who hasn't consented to it.

Okay, we are going to look at the precise situation you are describing right here. The number of deaths is excessive in comparison to the amount of time it takes.
I will assume the average lifespan to be seventy years (though it is pointless in this calculation) and that the foreskin would have to be washed daily.
Time taken through washing=1m/day*365days/year*70years=17.74 days
Time taken through death=70years
Likelihood of death through circumcision=16 in 90,000 (the high estimate. The low one is 1 in 500,000.)
Time taken through death by circumcision per procedure=70years*365days/year*16deaths/90000deaths=4.542 days
The amount of time lost to each death through circumcision is less a third of the amount of time used to clean a foreskin by your own estimate. I personally don't care., and I have no intention of having my own child circumcised, but looking at that I may actually be making the illogical choice there, especially if the low estimate is taken into consideration.

Hammeroj:
Since when is "the minute chance of fuck-ups" not covered by 'anything'? Unless the guy mistyped, I'm pretty sure I understood his point to the fullest extent. He views religious views as important to some degree, I'm asking why.

The added social cohesion from adhering to norms is far greater than 0.018% chance of death. That chance of death is so insignificant the lolipop the doctor gives you afterwards makes it worth it.

metsplayer1:

It's actually rather simple. It's not the circumcision itself that is the covenant, but rather that God commanded to Abraham that he and all his male descendants should have a reminder in their flesh of the covenant in which God promised that Abraham would be fruitful and multiply, so what better place for the reminder than the thing that lets you be fruitful and multiply. Sources: being Jewish.

Ah, so we can understand from the Talmudic point of view that it's still really fucking stupid.

So you don't think that issues of competence to determine one's participation in medical procedures should be an issue? It's just whatever the patient says yes to, unless he's incapable of responding, in which case the doctor decides?[/quote]

Hippocratic Oath. A doctor that just sells his practice to whomever wants it is at best, a bad doctor and at worst, violating the oath.

MASTACHIEFPWN:
Honestly, I'd leave this decision up to my spouse, because I really couldn't care less.

FotY material right here.

Revnak:

Matthew94:

I don't care if the number of deaths is low. There shouldn't be deaths for a procedure that has no benefits (other than saving 1m in the shower) especially on a person who hasn't consented to it.

Okay, we are going to look at the precise situation you are describing right here. The number of deaths is excessive in comparison to the amount of time it takes.
I will assume the average lifespan to be seventy years (though it is pointless in this calculation) and that the foreskin would have to be washed daily.
Time taken through washing-1m/day*365days/year*70years=17.74 days
Time taken through circumcision =70years
Likelihood of death through circumcision=16 in 90,000 (the high estimate. The low one is 1 in 500,000.)
70years*365days/year*16deaths/90000deaths=4.542 days
The amount of time lost to each death through circumcision is less a third of the amount of time used to clean a foreskin by your own estimate. I personally don't care., and I have no intention of having my own child circumcised, but looking at that I may actually be making the illogical choice there, especially if the low estimate is taken into consideration.

Time lost to death? Time taken through circumcision? What does that even mean?

I have no idea what you have posted, maybe it made sense in your head but it sure as shit doesn't on the post.

If you are trying to say that it saves you time in the day then just wake up an hour early and you'll gain years of time.

Pre-post EDIT

"The number of deaths is excessive in comparison to the amount of time it takes."

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying it has no benefits other than saving 1m in a day and people shouldn't die just because of such a pithy benefit.

I hear you lose 70% of the sensitivity.
I'm uncut and as an adult with a choice to alter that, I wouldn't for the life of me opt to lose my foreskin because of some stupid aesthetic purpose. I have never had an infection or other unsightly problem with my penis or foreskin my entire life. I can't imagine what excuses people use to poison adults into mutilating their children with some fear based penis-infection story and other bullshit.
I'm equally disgusting with female circumcision and think it's not in the least bit different for boys.

I present a third side to this.

That side is the "Why the hell does anyone care" side.
Seriously.
Either way it's not that big of a deal, It's just a minor detail in someones life and arguing about it isn't going to change anything.

Matthew94:

Revnak:

Matthew94:

I don't care if the number of deaths is low. There shouldn't be deaths for a procedure that has no benefits (other than saving 1m in the shower) especially on a person who hasn't consented to it.

Okay, we are going to look at the precise situation you are describing right here. The number of deaths is excessive in comparison to the amount of time it takes.
I will assume the average lifespan to be seventy years (though it is pointless in this calculation) and that the foreskin would have to be washed daily.
Time taken through washing-1m/day*365days/year*70years=17.74 days
Time taken through circumcision =70years
Likelihood of death through circumcision=16 in 90,000 (the high estimate. The low one is 1 in 500,000.)
70years*365days/year*16deaths/90000deaths=4.542 days
The amount of time lost to each death through circumcision is less a third of the amount of time used to clean a foreskin by your own estimate. I personally don't care., and I have no intention of having my own child circumcised, but looking at that I may actually be making the illogical choice there, especially if the low estimate is taken into consideration.

Time lost to death? Time taken through circumcision? What does that even mean?

I have no idea what you have posted, maybe it made sense in your head but it sure as shit doesn't on the post.

If you are trying to say that it saves you time in the day then just wake up an hour early and you'll gain years of time.

Pre-post EDIT

"The number of deaths is excessive in comparison to the amount of time it takes."

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying it has no benefits other than saving 1m in a day and people shouldn't die just because of such a pithy benefit.

Sorry, I was speaking math, but essentially what I meant was that the amount of time (life) used up through deaths by circumcision is less than the amount of time (life) used through washing foreskins. I also mislabeled a variable. I will edit that.

theheroofaction:
I present a third side to this.

That side is the "Why the hell does anyone care" side.
Seriously.
Either way it's not that big of a deal, It's just a minor detail in someones life and arguing about it isn't going to change anything.

Why do we discuss most things?

Most thing in life are trivial, should we all just sit in silence?

Revnak:

Sorry, I was speaking math, but essentially what I meant was that the amount of time (life) used up through deaths by circumcision is less than the amount of time (life) used through washing foreskins. I also mislabeled a variable. I will edit that.

Oh, I know math but I didn't think you would try to put someone's life simply as a variable.

Anyway, I countered your math by saying that waking up even 10m early each day would save 10x more time than circumcision and wouldn't affect you body in any noticeable way.

Matthew94:

theheroofaction:
I present a third side to this.

That side is the "Why the hell does anyone care" side.
Seriously.
Either way it's not that big of a deal, It's just a minor detail in someones life and arguing about it isn't going to change anything.

Why do we discuss most things?

Most thing in life are trivial, should we all just sit in silence?

No, but there's usually a "Really Good Bacon" option.

anthony87:
Nah it's not painful at all. Which is why I'm unsure about circumcision in the first place. I'm considering going to see a urologist once college is done for the summer to get a professional opinion but I'd really rather not have to get the chop.

I've not got anything against circumcision, I just dread the thoughts of those first few weeks you mentioned.

Oh, in that case, I wouldn't even bother, I think tons of guys have that "problem". No pain caused by it, why bother? I guarantee the post-op will be uncomfortable, at best.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked