Bittersweet Candy Bowl Forums

I don't see what the circumference of a circle has to do with my dick but okay.


Also, TD, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

This post has been edited by Meowth: 12 January 2012 - 03:21 AM

Obviously, nobody anywhere ever knows what they're talking about. Fucking circumcision professionals and dick doctors and foreskin frontier fighters are all up in arms over it. So, wowsers, it's still personal preference and everyone is yelling at each other over only that.

Some people think they're right and others wrong!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Yeah! Who would'a thought, right?

I would.

wacko, on 12 January 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

Don't feel like quoting a website word for word, but read Male Circumcision – Pros and Cons | The Art of Manliness that I put on my previous post.

I don't do arguments just by linking stuff, because I can do it too.

Seppucrow, on 12 January 2012 - 03:42 AM, said:

Sure.

Because everyone here has a PHD and has done studies to back their opinions on this matter. None of us are basing our knowledge on second hand sources at all. Please let me know what studies you did

PS: I'm not on reddit. I can argue

This post has been edited by Pants: 12 January 2012 - 03:46 AM

Apparently making a decision for your kid makes you a horrible father.

Taeshi, on 12 January 2012 - 01:40 AM, said:

how did I know this would be your position

how

except the souppy's dick part. that was pretty out of nowhere and a little tmi

This post has been edited by Rex: 12 January 2012 - 03:47 AM

Pants, on 12 January 2012 - 03:44 AM, said:

Who said I used my own research and study? I'm using research and studies done by other people. The only thing I'm doing is making connections to those researches and studies.

Same thing I could ask you, did you do your own studies?

"Not Without My Foreskin!" - A tale of fatherly love, only on Spike TV.

No, but you did give him shit for linking to others studies where you could get more information instead of opinionated paraphrase like a certain ritualistically suicidal avian.

Jerk, it has to be directed by Spike Lee. The main characters will be black and the evil snip happy doctors will be white and OH THE OPPRESSION OF IT ALL.

This post has been edited by Bourbon: 12 January 2012 - 03:51 AM

I am okay if those links were used to supplement a claim, which is what I do.

By the way, I made a lot of arguments here on this thread, and Pants didn't even bother to use the links against me on them.

That brings up an excellent question: do black people have foreskin?

I thought it was pretty obvious all arguments are fundamentally flawed no matter how many 'facts' you have because we're all just playing 'which study supports MY idea'.

And here I was thinking that you guys were above arguing about a flap of skin on a baby's penis.

I don't believe that all arguments are fundamentally flawed; what makes them so?

I thought science was going through all arguments until one was right. I talked to a scientist about it, and he said that science isn't just "Eureka" moments, but proving them through rigorous trial and error, and that includes arguments.

Seppucrow, on 12 January 2012 - 03:51 AM, said:

I don't need to attack you on an opinion and fact based argument. There is many different studies for both sides of the camp both for and against. I respect both sides. I "personally" am for circumcision, but I understand the debate against it and respect it.

Because of my experience with the subject matter, I have my "Opinion" that it is fine, but I understand that "Opinion" and "Fact" are different. Most fact based studies are biased, and are unreliable in use. It comes down to personal preference in this argument,. however the general opinion of most first world medical practises is that the procedure is unwarranted for most children, and is not recommended. However there has been no conclusive evidence that the practise is beyond any shadow of a doubt dangerous to all men, and therefore is very rarely deemed illegal in any country. However, this procedure is also used for many men when the foreskin is too tight on the penis, and a circumcision is performed to release the pressure.

No links, links? Doesn't matter when it's opinion.

Rex, on 12 January 2012 - 03:54 AM, said:

Well, lots of important things can be pretty small, I say. The eardrum is small, but it's something you need to hear, right? The lens of the eye is a blob of jelly, but it helps you see, right?

Meowth, on 12 January 2012 - 03:19 AM, said:

Apparently he speaks from experience, which is a mystery to me.

Pants, on 12 January 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:

There are alternatives to circumcision though when the foreskin is too tight. I know that there is a procedure that involves stretching it -- which is kind of the same as foreskin restoration as to my knowledge involve stretching.

There's nothing else to say about this matter. Saying that there's no conclusive evidence is straight up denial.

This post has been edited by Seppucrow: 12 January 2012 - 04:01 AM

Seppucrow, on 12 January 2012 - 04:00 AM, said:

Santa exists - There is no evidence to say he does not exist. There is no conclusive evidence otherwise.


This is a first year Psychology argument. I learned it, in first year Psychology. It's good


Pro Circumcision argument - No sensitivity loss : http://www.reuters.c...724473320070727

Negative Circumcision argument - sensitivity loss : http://www.nocirc.or...st/bju_6685.pdf

Links! Positive and negative!

Wait wait wait, Seppu...what the fuck are you saying now?

This post has been edited by Bourbon: 12 January 2012 - 04:06 AM

How is that relevant to what I said?

Sepp, are you going to be mad at me if I have all my sons circumsized? I don't want you to think I'm a child abuser. I can stop if you want.

Bourbon, on 12 January 2012 - 04:05 AM, said:

What am I saying that makes you not understand? If you don't know what I said tell me that part and I'll try and explain it.

Taeshi, on 12 January 2012 - 02:19 AM, said:

I'd just like to point out that I disagree with this for two reasons.

First of all, if you consider circumcision mutilation, you must also consider ear piercing mutilation, and many young girls get this at a young age. Tell me, how is this any better than circumcision? It's equally damaging to the body - which is to say, it has no proven long term consequences - and makes about equal sense. Is it more acceptable because it's "pretty"? At the age of 11 or 12, I'd say it's still pretty out of the child's hands.

The other thing is that, in Judaism at least, the baby is drunk at the time, and on top of that quickly forgets the pain. I believe in some modern cases they may even use proper anesthetic, so the issue isn't really the pain, as it's brief and quickly forgotten. I for one certainly remember none of it, and I don't feel like I'm missing anything, but that's irrelevant.

Also, not actually in response to your post, but in general, the other thing is that a parent has the legal right to make choices for their child. Under the thought process of "the child should get to choose whether to undergo circumcision or not", a child should also get to choose which pre-/elementary school to go to, since the time they spend there is irreversable. Hell, that could probably be a lot more scarring then getting the tip of your pecker getting cut off.

In giving the child that choice, you open up a world of others which could theoretically undermind the idea of a parent being able to make decisions for their children. Since there are no proven health deficits, it is really the parent's decision, since they have the legal right to make decisions in their child's name.

I think the main opposition to circumcision isn't because 'the child should have the decision', or health reasons. It's because of strong anti-religious current currently going through the secular world that says that all things that have their basis in religion and tradition should be removed simply because their basis is in religion. While I'm all for tearing apart stupid things, discarding something simply because it's got a religious basis is equally, if not more stupid.

Let me just close by saying that since the parent has the legal right to do things in the child's name, the child is usually drunk at the time, It's no more harmful than getting an ear piercing, the pain pretty much lasts less than the time it takes for a bruise to heal - that is to say, not long at all - and there are no proven health deficits, there's no legitimate reason for circumcision to be banned, like it was going to be in San Francisco and Massachusetts before they got overturned.

Plus I think uncircumcized penises just look ugly

Some points of fact:

• The word smega makes me retch. The concept of it is so distant from my experience that I don't understand why this is even something to talk about. Maybe for like, Indians living in pig shit slums? But where you have running water, it's easier than keeping your hair clean.
  
• There'd certainly be less sensation for circumcised men. The more those nerves get touched the less they feel.
  
• It's fair to say that uncircumcised penises might seem abnormal to some American (and, um, Israeli?) girls. This is likely a lot more to do with familiarity than anything else, though, and is a weak argument.

This debate will always be a mess, because men are sensitive about their penises and aren't going to change sides very happily. Those with circumcised penises have a strong incentive to rationalise circumcision as healthier, more attractive, more traditional, or else they suffer the pain of a poorer self-image. While I'd hate to be in that position, it doesn't change the fact that circumcision is an obsolete, cruel, ridiculous thing to do to young human beings. If you want to believe it makes your penis look better, then that's fine, but don't perpetuate a silly old ritual on your children just because you can't bear to think that your body is slightly worse than it could be.

I think little girls getting their ears pierced without their consent is just as awful. If they wanna get piercings or tattoos or that kind of stuff, it's their decision. It's not like little boys consent to circumcision. I always found the "hurpadurp ear piercing" argument moronic, because it doesn't invalidate my point.

besides i think various piercings and tattoos are ugly as hell, it's your decision, but you still are mutilating your body. But the difference is, you want to do that to yourself. In a lot of cases, little boys are forced to do it. Which I think is pretty shitty, and it's not really beneficial and only for lazy idiots like Grass who don't want to clean their penises like the disgusting fucks they are. Rather than teach them proper hygiene, mutilate their dicks! Class act parenting.

Pretty sure choosing the right education is way different to choosing to mutilate your child. I kind of stopped reading the rest of what you said, Sparkfur, because I feel you're saying a whole lot of nonsense.

I think it's an unnecessary thing to do especially when there is the possibility of death or infection from it that can be avoided. Teach them how to clean it properly like you would any other body part. As for the STD arguement, teach them safe sex, done and done.

To add: My boyfriend is circumcised(the only penis I've ever uh experienced haha), though I could care less if he was or wasn't.

This post has been edited by Carmen: 12 January 2012 - 04:32 AM

SuitCase, on 12 January 2012 - 04:27 AM, said:

The thing is suit, it's extremely hard to shake the opinion that it's the "better" tool. Odds are that if you have it, the society around you and culture supports it and frowns upon the alternative.

It's why I've always been "neeh" on my opinion. I know my preference is based on superficial points, but that's what it takes alot of the time for people to do things. I've seen many bris done in , the kid cries for 20 minutes, and then life goes on. To "me" it seems not that bad, but it's silly to not see how crazy it is to cut it off.

If I had to have a serious discussion with a future wife, I might give in. But I would prefer to have my child in my image. It's clearly an ego/penis/man argument, but I'm a being governed by feelings. Just as people raise their kids with the same beleifs/religion, I want my kid to have a similar package down there. I don't like the uncircumsized, but I don't see it as a "bad" penis, just not a style I prefer.

So yeah, bouncy back and forth argument Gettout the thread suit, you make this difficult when I don't have a solid base to stand on.

This is becoming a stupid argument.

Religious people feel that it is beneficial to have their child circumcised and that something bad will happen to the child if it does not happen. So they feel that for the well being of the child minor pain is worth it. The studies that have gone over the topic are sketchy at best on if it really matters for sensation. So since there is barely any negatives other then possible loss of sensation that the child won't even know about since he won't ever experience it not complying is the worst option. I realize that if you aren't religious that this practice may seem barbaric, but realize the mindset is suppose to be helpful toward. There is no reason to get up in arms and fucking burn down house over this. I suppose you could wait until until the child is of age to make the decision to join their religion that supports it, but most have a set date that it is suppose to happen on so that doesn't really work. Heck even men who become Jewish later in life have to have a circumcision to be consider true.

As for the medical benefits they are also sketchy and come down to hygiene so people who don't have this in their religion probably shouldn't do it.

This post has been edited by Rawrdinosaur: 12 January 2012 - 04:54 AM

I love how much the people on this forum love talking about dicks and mutilating them.

Leaving_a_Comment, on 12 January 2012 - 04:59 AM, said:

Where is Ubertoast when you need him *snip snip*

Rawrdinosaur, on 12 January 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

You're basically saying once again that it's okay if they do it for religion, and non religious people shouldn't do it. I don't think that's okay. Parents shouldn't get to change their child's body due to their religion. If they can back their argument for circumcision with actual reasons and benefits, and they have a real reason to do it, well, that's okay, but if they're gonna go about it like "Okay, Jeebus says we have to circumcise, so let's find excuses to do it" then it's absolutely wrong and stupid.

Carmen, on 12 January 2012 - 04:29 AM, said:

What? How is there a possibility of death or infection from circumcision? Could you please elaborate? I mean, infection is possible if the doctor that needs to be present is a retard and fails to pay attention, but unless the father stabs the baby, I fail to see how it could result in death.

Anyways, I probably shouldn't have used the earrings point since I don't actually really approve of that, but back on topic I think you'd be hardpressed to find a circumcized male who would want to be un-circumcized. Most of us don't see it as having been abusive, but I suppose it's based on your perspective.

I suppose, to me, it really depends how it's done. If it's done properly, with anasthetic and a doctor present, I really see no problem with it, and it's a lot less painful than doing it when you're an adolescent, which is actually apparantly when the majority are done. Again, though, it's a matter of opinion.

Not really an argument at all, but I think it'd be more arab girls that find uncircumcized penises weird, considering the fact that 68% of circumcized men are Muslim.

But the health benefits are real, as circumcision has been possibly shown to reduce the chances of catching HIV by 51-60%, as well as other STIs.

Of course these statistics are debatable, but if they're true, then it suddenly becomes a lot more difficult to argue against circumcision on health-related grounds.

There's a risk of infection from almost any kind of surgery. Bad infections can lead to fatal ones. Some babies have been known to go into shock and die. EDIT: Not to mention anesthesia issues?

If these can be avoided, then why not avoid them.

This post has been edited by Carmen: 12 January 2012 - 05:23 AM

Why keep the penis intact at all? I doubt very much anyone could deny complete removal of the sex organs at birth would drop the risk of HIV or other STDs by as much as 500%. That's five times more than never, holy shit I'm cutting my penis off right the fuck now!

Well, I found a comprehensive rebuttal of that HIV claim

And like I said before, the claim relies on statistics which can be manipulated and not any concrete proof.

This post has been edited by Seppucrow: 12 January 2012 - 05:33 AM

Like I said, you get just as much protection from barriers such as condoms, which involves no mutilation!

Seppucrow, on 12 January 2012 - 05:33 AM, said:

You could say the rebuttal also relies on statistics which can be manipulated and do not offer any concrete proof.

Thing is, there are so many contradictory studies that it's not easy to make an informed decision on the topic (The topic being wether circumcision really has enough benefits to be worth doing).

Some things I see as worthy of being considered, and probably followed, are the positions of leading medical associations. I tend to like this one: There's no need to make circumcision routine or mandatory, and non-therapeutic circumcision (circumsicion for reasons other than health benefits) conflicts with the rights of the child. It should be demonstrated that the circumcision is in the best interest of the child (by their parents) in the particular scenario if it is to be performed.

Something I noticed is that some of them accept religious circumcision, and I find that revolting.

This post has been edited by Itu: 12 January 2012 - 05:48 AM

I don't think the rebuttal relies on statistics. It has a lot of details on the studies to see how they went, and rebutted them by pointing out factors that twisted the statistic.

As I've said before, I am okay of leaving the decision up to the person itself, but I still wouldn't encourage it because I think it gives more encouragement itself.

Seppucrow, on 12 January 2012 - 05:49 AM, said:

Proving a study was wrongfully done doesn't make the opposite of what it was trying to prove right, and neither makes the conclusions of the study necessarily false.

Edit: Oh hey Seppucrow, you said you didn't find anything about circumcision being worse in older males in the links I sent you. Let me spoiler the exact places for you. It's pretty long and really not worth discussing anymore, but here it is.

This post has been edited by Itu: 12 January 2012 - 06:02 AM

I agree that it doesn't necessarily prove the opposite, as that would require a different study that focues on proving it.

Itu, on 12 January 2012 - 05:04 AM, said:

Its only wrong and stupid if you're working under the assumption that there is no God. Assuming they are right and God wants them to do it then you would be making a bad move by not doing it.

Rawrdinosaur, on 12 January 2012 - 05:58 AM, said:

If I believe God wants me not to move at all in Sabbath, and a man is dying in front of me, it's wrong to save him then. (Don't talk about sabbath, it's just an example of a type of stupid belief)

If I believe God wants me to stone and obliterate all heretics, then it's wrong not to do it.

Religion is okay as long as it doesn't get in the way. Then it becomes stupid and wrong.

This post has been edited by Itu: 12 January 2012 - 06:07 AM

Itu, on 12 January 2012 - 06:05 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure you can make an exception in that example.

Anyways from what I have found there is very minimal negatives with circumcision. So unless something is different with the child's health that would make the circumcision worse why not let religious people do it. They feel that it is what they should do and some feel that by not doing it they are doing something negative to the child. If it were something like removing someones thumb sure that could be really bad, but until there is some definitive study or a large amount of cases of people who have mental trauma from it I support their right to do it.

It doesn't matter how minimal the difference is. My problem with your argument is that you think people should not do it, unless they think their god wills so, and then suddenly it becomes acceptable.

You really have to get religion out of this argument, it should be only about the health benefits versus complications or setbacks.

This post has been edited by Itu: 12 January 2012 - 06:18 AM

Sadly religion is a factor in this situation. Almost no one does it for the health factors since they are minimal. Purely on a medical standpoint I don't agree because there is almost no benefit and they do no outweigh the minimal drawbacks.

Religion makes a lot of things acceptable for the people who believe that religion since they believable in the higher power telling them to do the thing. To people outside their religion it is wrong because obviously they view it as causeless. Since I feel that I should accept everyone beliefs I am forced to as a result allow them to do things that I feel is silly, but they don't. Unless it is something serious then I see no reason why I shouldn't allow it. I don't encourage them to do it, but I don't condemn it either

This post has been edited by Rawrdinosaur: 12 January 2012 - 06:32 AM