Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

It's not of massive importance to a child and is generally cleaner sooooo...

At 1/25/09 03:38 PM, Fyndir wrote: They use local techniques, which is not putting the baby "out" at all, and doesn't remove all of the pain, just dulls it very slightly.

Local anesthetics dull the pain a lot more than "very slightly" and are used in significantly more invasive surgeries than this.

At 1/26/09 03:37 AM, Fyndir wrote:

At 1/25/09 04:26 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: Local anesthetics dull the pain a lot more than "very slightly" and are used in significantly more invasive surgeries than this.

Not the types in use for circumcision.

your article doesn't support that.

At 1/26/09 12:44 PM, Fyndir wrote: The fact that they used three different local techniques, and still failed to remove the pain completely, clearly indicates that the methods and dosages which are safe for use in an infant are not effective enough to warrant being described as stopping more than a small amount of the pain.

assuming that the individual pain medicines do little to reduce pain does not follow the fact that more than one is used. the pain relief provided by one may be adequate, or provide a fair bit of relief, but used in conjunction with another, it may be more so.
the pain medications being discussed were also of very different natures, i.e. nerve blocks and analgesic creams. at no point does the article indicate that the pain medication has nearly no effect.

Suck on it bitches

No seriously its healthier

At 3/26/09 01:10 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Suck on it bitches

No seriously its healthier

;;;
I read that in todays paper.
Looks like the hoodie brigade just have to be even more vigilant than they were previously.

At 3/26/09 01:10 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Suck on it bitches

No seriously its healthier

Besides the point.

COMPLICATIONS OF THE CIRCUMCISION
PROCEDURE

The true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown.32 Reports of two large series have suggested that the complication rate is somewhere between 0.2% and 0.6%.33,34 Most of the complications that do occur are minor.35 The most frequent complication, bleeding is seen in ~0.1% of circumcisions.35 It is quite rare to need transfusion after a circumcision because most bleeding episodes can be handled quite well with local measures (pressure, hemostatic agents, cautery, sutures). Infection is the second most common of the complications, but most of these infections are minor and are manifest only by some local redness and purulence.33 There also are isolated case reports of other complications such as recurrent phimosis, wound separation, concealed penis, unsatisfactory cosmesis because of excess skin, skin bridges, urinary retention, meatitis, meatal stenosis, chordee, inclusion cysts, and retained Plastibell devices.26 Case reports have been noted associating circumcision with such rare events as scalded skin syndrome, necrotizing fasciitis, sepsis, and meningitis, as well as with major surgical problems such as urethral fistula, amputation of a portion of the glans penis, and penile necrosis.32,35

At 3/26/09 01:10 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Suck on it bitches

No seriously its healthier

That study doesn't say that circumcision lowers risk, it says that circumsized men have less AIDs.
That's like saying gayness causes AIDs because gay men have more AIDs.

At 3/27/09 03:13 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 3/26/09 01:10 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Suck on it bitches

No seriously its healthier

That study doesn't say that circumcision lowers risk, it says that circumsized men have less AIDs.
That's like saying gayness causes AIDs because gay men have more AIDs.

Notice the apples and oranges?
lowers risk
causes AIDS

Gay people are certainly at a higher risk of getting AIDS.
That can be easily explained away by the fact that they are more likely to engage in an activity that HIV is easily transferable, but I would like to know how circumcision influences the circumcised's behavior.

At 3/27/09 11:01 AM, therealsylvos wrote:

but I would like to know how circumcision influences the circumcised's behavior.

Jewsish people get them and they usually live in upscale tightass families who don't fuck around with non-jews.
If you're jewish in Africa, my guess is that you have more financial and social support than the average mut hut dwelling tribesman.

Not to mention that Africans have a slew of stupid religious beliefs themselves like initiation rites and the mentality that it's ok for men to sleep around A LOT for whatever insane reason they thought was valid that day when they woke up.

In Judaism, once you're married, YOU DON'T SLEEP AROUND. And they probably don't have the Pope telling them that condoms cause AIDs because they don't give a shit about the Pope.

Its more painful as you get older and thats one of the reasons they do it when the child is an infant.

~X~

How many people were uncircumcised by their adulthood (and therefore had sex) and then became circimucised and had sex? I'd like to hear from someone who's done that so we can determine if it really does take away the pleasure of sex.

At 3/28/09 07:12 PM, Ericho wrote: How many people were uncircumcised by their adulthood (and therefore had sex) and then became circimucised and had sex? I'd like to hear from someone who's done that so we can determine if it really does take away the pleasure of sex.

Besides the point.

This thread is not about what's better.

At 3/28/09 08:55 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote:

At 3/28/09 07:44 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: This thread is not about what's better.

This thread is about people's opinions towards infant circumcision.

So... what's the difference?

It's about violation of rights etc

At 3/26/09 02:32 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 3/26/09 01:10 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Suck on it bitches

No seriously its healthier

;;;
I read that in todays paper.
Looks like the hoodie brigade just have to be even more vigilant than they were previously.

if eternal vigilance is the price i must pay so that my man-skin doesn't become part of a wallet, so be it!

At 3/28/09 09:34 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote: The topic starter raised several issues and then asked what other people's stances are, so, it's about several things actually. My quick guess is that you're one of the people who had or still have the opinion that there is absolutely no medical benefit to the procedure at all, and since evidence to the contrary has been appearing in the news recently, you'd rather just ignore the part of the discussion about which option may be better for the health and well-being of the child.

There are also news regarding:
1.) validity of these sources (lots of them are purely correlational studies, and from people who advocate circumcision.)
2.) No true way to test it out... (because these studies are correlational-- and anyone and anything can be correlated.)
3.) No explanation as to why an STD is more likely to infect men with intact foreskins. (I've read, so far-- possible answers. Not conclusive ones.)

Part of the scientific process is to test things, and to repeat the process, and to get the same consistent results.

I don't think we should throw the baby with the bath water in this situation. The foreskin has its conclusive benefits, the first is to keep the gland moist and protected from friction. I think this outweighs the possible side effects which may or may not exist.

And until we have a non-correlational study with a conclusive scientific answer to how the foreskin help AIDS/HIV virus infect men, then I'm more willing to eliminate my own foreskin.

At 3/29/09 02:22 AM, StephanosGnomon wrote: Clearly, the operation itself does not actually obstruct the function of the penis, whether it be for waste elimination or procreation or sensuous enjoyment or whatever. It's difficult to build a convincing argument indicating the detriments of circumcision when the procedure doesn't actually preclude the various intended functions of the organ itself.

I'm not purely talking about the functions of the only the penis.
There are circumcised men who exercise, and this is mostly the aerobic type, have to stretch out their own foreskin because the constant friction chafes the gland.

For you, that's fine. For others, not so much. If everyone waited for "non-correlational studies with conclusive evidence" before making ANY decisions in their lives... well, they'd all be dead before even being "given the opportunity" to make a choice about anything. I put that in quotations because, at that point, when something is thoroughly proven beyond a shadow of a doubt... it basically ceases to be a REAL choice.

they would be dead if they followed EVERY advice.
One minute, coffee is healthy. Another minute, coffee is poison.
Chocolate, smoking, exercise, wine, etc...

But let me put it into this perspective. I lived all my life with my foreskin. I've never had an STD (mostly because I've always practiced safe sex, and for the most part-- had been monogamous for almost 10 years... the length of my love life, really.)

My father, grandfather, and cousins (minus one) have intact foreskins. And they have active lives. As far as I know, none of them have penis cancers or AIDS or anything else.

We have a poor neighboring country right underneath us, Mexico, and for the most part-- it's a nation that doesn't circumcise their children (it's a procedure left for the rich, or the small population of Jews and Muslims.)

Yet, when we compare the HIV/AIDS rate between the US and Mexico-- we would be surprised that Mexico also has a lower infection rate than the US (albeit, they have a higher rate tween pregnancy... but I'm not too sure about that one.)

There are tons of other factors going on, but if circumcision has anything to do with any with it-- then it would be MINIMAL.

There may be health benefits of losing the foreskin. There may be not...
But waiting to be 100% sure about it will--I tell you--not kill me.

. . .

My view is this:

The procedure started popularly as a covenant between man and God as symbolized through Abraham, his slaves, and his offspring. Other covenants were made as well, such as the Noachide laws, Mosaic laws, etc., e.g. such as where kosher rules derive from. Personally, I think that certain messages were given for ALL ages... and others, specifically, for the age at hand. I think that circumcision is one of the messages that were given for the age at hand much like kosher laws were... but not, NOT for all ages. It served a clear purpose for the designated time and place it was introduced-in, but it needn't be held-to if it's outlived its actual usefulness.

I know you aren't the one to bring such a perspective, but, to counter the traditional 'obligatory' dogmatic Christian stance on things, I would offer the following from the Gospel of Thomas:

"His disciples said to him, 'Is circumcision useful or not?' He said to them, 'If it were useful, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect.' "

Mmmm....
Gospel of Thomas isn't even part of neither Jewish or Christian cannon. And even then, it's talking about the "circumcision of the heart" (which is a phrase the occurs in both Jewish and Christian scripture)-- and if that resonates with the "true circumcisio in the spirit," then I think it's talking about making a promise/covenant to God, in your heart or spirite, to yield and Love God. (And, maybe perhaps, in my own secular humanitarian interpretation... to just love all people in general.)

And even then,
you tell that to the dead Palestinians who provided the some 200 foreskins that King Saul ordered David for the wedding dowry.

Or the story of the Shechemites in Genesis-- who couldn't fight against Jacob's sons because they were healing from their circumcision.

The way I interpret that is, the true value of circumcision (as described in Genesis) is the covenant aspect, the acceptance of something that may seem harmful but in the end, although not completely understood, is totally profitable... in other words, the value is not in the physical aspect alone, is not in the aspect of obligatory acceptance, but acceptance in the face of something that seems detrimental even though, in the end, proves itself to be for the better.

And I wholeheartedly agree what you're saying. In fact, it's a beautiful sentiment. "Circumcise your heart" is perhaps one of the most beautiful phrases I've heard, and the strangest.

But to circumcize my penis?
I'm gonna take a rain check for that one.

...

I've said it isn't a necessary procedure. I've conceded that it's a procedure that may have outlived it's usefulness is modern times. I've indicated my belief that certain "traditional views" should only be considered as being applicable to the time and the audience that they were originally written for. Despite all this, I STILL think it's under the authority of the parents and no one else. After all, this topic is called "Infant Circumcision", not "Adult Circumcision". If the parents don't want to opt for the procedure... fine. If they DO want to opt for the procedure, fine.

Your children? You decide. My children? I decide.

And this is what I also agree.
But whole problem is with the parent's logic.

All I want them to do is tell the truth: It's for religious or cosmetic purposes.
And they may have their qualms about it. "Oh, it smells..."

Well, so do arm pits-- but you're not gonna chop off your arm to prevent a little bit of arm pit smell from happening!

"Oh-- it gives them a better chance of not getting HIV/AIDS."
First off-- I say there are also correlational studies saying successful people are usually drinkers... but that's coincidental because successful people tend to network (and bars are places to network.)

And if a parent is truly concerned about their kids about getting AIDS-- then a frank discussion about making good choices is an even better option.

Circumcise your baby boys-- but just tell the truth.
"I'm circumcising my kid because 1.) Foreskin are ugly, 2.) I'm Jewish/Muslim, or 3.) I just doing it for the Hell of it."

Because saying things like... men with foreskins get more AIDS sounds more like slander than actual news.

well, if it isn't for religious reasons, it is dumb, because it could scar a childs life, and they should have a say in it, so if you want your boy to be circumsised wait until he understands that he will get part of the skin on his dick cut off.

Your children? You decide. My children? I decide.

I think circumsision is a immoral thing to do in the same way that putting a tattoo on your babys forearm is an immoral thing to do.

both when practiced correctly do little harm, and as far as we can PROVE they dont have any benifits or negatives, however parents shouldnt be able to do with there children whatever they want even if it dosent harm them. The moral thing to do is to wait until the child is old enough to know what circumsicion is and let THEM decicde weither they want the procedure or not.

you wouldnt give your baby a tatto why would you remove there foreskin?

At 3/30/09 09:31 PM, thedo12 wrote: I think circumsision is a immoral thing to do in the same way that putting a tattoo on your babys forearm is an immoral thing to do.

True but a tattoo of a circumcised head on an uncircumcised penis gives that 'Aaah!! A penis is coming out of your penis!" trick that's sure to be a hit with the ladies :D

you wouldnt give your baby a tatto why would you remove there foreskin?

Tattoos don't normally hold religious or traditional values at birth for reasons I'll mention soon, but circumcision does.

Tattoos warp, stretch and fade with changes to the body and time, often resembling nothing of what it originally was and is often a blur by the time the child makes it into their teens. This makes it redundant to tattoo an infant.

I've never heard of circumcision doing that! Medically there is no proven benefit or detriment to the function of the penis regarding circumcision and is a choice that is left to the parent and taking that away is a step backwards for freedom.

FREEDOM!!!!!!

At 3/31/09 02:57 AM, Snake-Arsenic wrote: True but a tattoo of a circumcised head on an uncircumcised penis gives that 'Aaah!! A penis is coming out of your penis!" trick that's sure to be a hit with the ladies :D

lmao

you wouldnt give your baby a tatto why would you remove there foreskin?

Tattoos don't normally hold religious or traditional values at birth for reasons I'll mention soon, but circumcision does.

so your saying that religion or tradition should be given greater priority then an infants rights?

Tattoos warp, stretch and fade with changes to the body and time, often resembling nothing of what it originally was and is often a blur by the time the child makes it into their teens. This makes it redundant to tattoo an infant.

hay we can just tatto them again, since tradition is more important then your rights I guess

I don't even remember when I was circumsized, So does it matter.
Its not causing me any problems, nor any pain or embarrassment.

I don't see the problem.

Besides, Who would get unnecessary surgery as an adult? And Circumsized adults cant get their real foreskin back, so isn't circumcision something that should be best done as an infant?

I think it shouldn't be let up for the parent. anything that does not need to be removed should not until the child knows what is to happen. If not for religious reasons (If you arent jewish or a muslim) then it shouldnt be for the parent to decide what will happen to the body of their child

when u get circumcized when your older it hurts when your an infant when u grow up u wont remember the pain and theres a healthy reason why they do it as well as a religious one and it makes us guys dick look bigger

At 4/5/09 05:49 PM, Vincens wrote: when u get circumcized when your older it hurts when your an infant when u grow up u wont remember the pain and theres a healthy reason why they do it as well as a religious one and it makes us guys dick look bigger

Actually there are no health benefits. I already posted a link refuting that myth.

'looks' bigger? So now our penis's are an optical illusion?

At 4/5/09 05:49 PM, Vincens wrote: when u get circumcized when your older it hurts when your an infant when u grow up u wont remember the pain and theres a healthy reason why they do it as well as a religious one and it makes us guys dick look bigger

So is it alright for me to cut off your earlobes as a baby? I mean it hurts but you won't remember iit, right?