Circumcising USA

[Sol Rosenberg]

well, since you put it that way, now i feel gypped. how do i go about fixing my pecker?

See post #20 in this thread

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ml66uk]

Some things you may not be aware of:
1) there are six African countries where circumcised men are more likely to be HIV+ than intact men.
2) in Rwanda, circumcised men are 65% more likely to be HIV+ than intact men, but they've just launched a campaign to promote circumcision. A little strange for a country with just 1 doctor for every 50,000 people, and one nurse for every 3,900 people.
3) circumcised men who are HIV+ seem to be more likely to infect women than intact men who are HIV+
4) female circumcision seems to protect against HIV (but there's no way we'd investigate cutting off women's labia).

Citation please.

1) The six countries are Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Tanzania, and you can look up the figures for five of those here:
Cameroon http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR163/16chapitre16.pdf table 16.9, p17 (4.1% v 1.1%)
Ghana http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR152/13Chapter13.pdf table 13.9 (1.6% v 1.4%)
Lesotho http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR171/12Chapter12.pdf table 12.9 (22.8% v 15.2%)
Malawi http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR175/FR-175-MW04.pdf table 12.6, p257 (13.2% v 9.5%)
Rwandahttp://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR183/15Chapter15.pdf , table 15.11 (3.5% v 2.1%)
(the most recent report for Tanzania here: http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR173/13Chapter13.pdf doesn't seem to mention male circumcision)

If you read those reports btw, the level of knowledge about HIV is quite frightening. In Malawi for instance, only 57% know that condoms protect against HIV/AIDS, and only 68% know that limiting sexual partners protects against HIV/AIDS. There are people who haven't even heard of condoms. It just seem really misguided to be hailing male circumcision as the way forward. It would help if some of the aid donors didn't refuse to fund condom education, or work that involves talking to prostitutes. There are African prostitutes that sleep with 20-50 men a day, and some of them say that hardly any of the men use a condom. If anyone really cares about men, women, and children dying in Africa, surely they'd be focussing on education about safe sex rather than surgery that offers limited protection at best, and runs a high risk of risk compensatory behavior.

2) http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR183/15Chapter15.pdf table 15.11
http://www.plusnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=79085

3) http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/23/2/371
"History of multiple sexual partners, history of STD, high household income, partner circumcision, and past oral contraceptive use remained strongly associated with HIV-1 infection even when simultaneously controlling for other covariates."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/96175.php
Note that the rate of serconversion was higher even after the healing period was over, though the effect was no longer statistically significant. This study appears to have caused 8 additional women to be infected with HIV, solely because their husbands were circumcised.

4) http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138
"A lowered risk of HIV infection among circumcised women was not attributable to confounding with another risk factor in these data."
This study did everything it could to explain away the link between female circumcision and HIV as being due to other factors.

 

[ml66uk]

While not overly common, there are uncircumcised men that need to be circumcised as adults (sports injury that ends up tearing the foreskin, etc.) While it is necessarily anecdotal, the consensus amongst adult circumcisees is that the circumcision results in reduced sensation.

There's anecdotal evidence both ways. Some of the men circumcised as adults didn't have a correctly functioning foreskin to begin with though, so it's only to be expected that circumcision benefits them. Outside the US, other treatments (stretching and steroids creams) frequently fix the problem without surgery though. Circumcision is usually a last resort.

There is also empirical evidence. This study included 255 men who were circumcised after the age of 20:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646.x

RESULTS
About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision.

 

[Pharmavixen]

[thread drift]

When you adjust the life span for those killed by violent crimes Americans actually live longer than Canadians.

Citation??????

[/thread drift]

 

[AwesomO]

[thread drift]
Citation??????

[/thread drift]

Where is the request of citation when it's stated that Canada is better? Anyway here ya go. http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/09/natural-life-expectancy-in-united.html

 

[Tired]

Where is the request of citation when it's stated that Canada is better? Anyway here ya go. http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/09/natural-life-expectancy-in-united.html

Actually, the literature says the opposite.


Tired, V. Proving the obvious: outcome measures demonstrate that Canada totally sucks compared the United States. Journal of Absolute Truth. 3:16-25, 2007

 

[teddybear]

it just looks better, doesn't it?

Not necessarily. I think they look good both ways myself.

 

[teddybear]

What I meant was I think either way looks fine and people shouldn't get all caught up in looks.

 

[psy]

What I meant was I think either way looks fine and people shouldn't get all caught up in looks.

Good catch

 

[ml66uk]

Where is the request of citation when it's stated that Canada is better? Anyway here ya go. http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/09/natural-life-expectancy-in-united.html

We only got onto this because someone suggested that "socialized medicine" was the reason why circumcision rates had dropped so much faster in Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand. Like I said then, "This is another topic that could generate many threads of its own, but if circumcision was believed to promote long-term health benefits, then you'd expect countries with national health care to promote it. Australia and New Zealand had circumcision rates of over 90% under "socialized medicine", but the (circumcised) physicians there turned against it. It's not quite clear why that hasn't happened to anything like the same extent in the USA."

The presentation that blog quotes is interesting, but not a peer-reviewed paper. It doesn't give any citation for the figures we're talking about here. The relevant figures given for life expectancy at birth (1980-1999) are here:

Canada raw life expectancy 77.3, adjusted life expectancy 76.2
USA raw life expectancy 75.3, adjusted life expectancy 76.9

It's not immediately clear how they've made this adjustment for fatal injuries, or why it makes the "standardized mean" go up in some countries, but down in others.

The 2008 estimates for life expectancy in the CIA world factbook show a bigger difference:

Canada 81.16 years
USA 78.14 years
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

The UNDP figures for Health expenditure per capita (PPP US$) 2004
http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/52.html

Canada $3,173
USA $6,096

Now can we go back to talking about circumcision?

 

[Tchaikovsky]

I was reading an article (back when I was interested in the consequences of circumcision) about how a middle aged man decided to get circumcised. He said he felt WAY less afterwards, which would make sense because foreskin is heavily laden with nerve endings.

It seems the thread is now leaning towards third world countries rather than the US... but it's interesting how circumcision reduces chances to spread HIV. Mechanically this is because foreskin can be torn off the shaft to a certain extent in some people which causes the area to be raw.

 

[Dirt]

It's Interesting How Circumcision Reduces Chances To Spread Hiv. Mechanically This Is Because Foreskin Can Be Torn Off The Shaft To A Certain Extent In Some People Which Causes The Area To Be Raw.

Wtf?

 

[montessori2md]

Call me uninformed, but I thought the USA was slow to follow the no-cut tactics of the so called civilized because many USA insurance companies still cover/partly cover the procedure.

I mean, if insurance covered breast enlargements and botox, wouldn't they be super common?
And if your pediatrician said, well, that will be $800, wouldn't you at least think before telling him that foreskin HAS to go?

My DH acquiesed to saying no-cut for our son after I insisted, as the person who pushed the baby out, that I got to decide. I just didn't want my baby to be any more cranky than necessary -being born and analyzed in the hospital seemed like enough stress. But that doesn't mean I think anyone who thinks their child should be circumcised is some sort of barbarian either.

But I'm not too keen on performing one...just like I'm not so sure I'd like to go implanting 5 embryos into someone, or aborting a fetus because it had downs, or installing those DD headlamps... I'm not saying "never", just that I'd rather not.

I should perhaps add that our preschooler does not yet seem interested in any differences in anatomy between dad and himself. He is still puzzled by the fact that girls do not have a penis, and occasionally wants to know more about where babies come from. I should think it won't be long and he'll be old enough that seeing dad in the shower will be basically an "ew, gross" moment anyhow.

 

[Kai Zhur]

It's uplifting to hear opposition to non-therapeutic circumcision (or at least, a distaste for it) from those going into the medical profession. It's reasonable to assume there will be a strong trend in this direction, because it is circumcised men and those lacking experience with intact men who are primarily responsible for perpetuating it in the medical community. Physicians practicing today were born into a nation which thoroughly embraced the practice, whereas it has been declining in recent decades. We could see a tipping point beyond which the medical community, no longer heavily biased by their own personal experiences, are able to finally place medically unnecessary circumcision into the dustbin of medical history, where it belongs.

No 15 year-old boy should need to worry about trying to partially restore his lost foreskin. No physician should be the cause of that.

 

[SocialistMD]

Where is the request of citation when it's stated that Canada is better? Anyway here ya go. http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/09/natural-life-expectancy-in-united.html

What's fascinating about this is that some countries actually went down when accounting for fatal injuries. Does that mean their murder victims are octogenerians?

 

[jpro]

Foreskins can't grow back (to my knowledge.)

Google TLC Tugger

BTW circumcision is a useless procedure that exposes babies to risks of bleeding, infection, and in some some cases mutilation for absolutely no medical indication.

 

[Llenroc]

Routine circumcision should never be done. In fact, I'm not even sure if we should be allowing certain groups in the country to do it for "religious" reasons. It seems inconsistent to me that they spend so much time lecturing medical students on the horrors of Somali female genital mutilation, but at the same time it's no problem if the Jewish community wants to circumcise all boys. How is one against the bounds of "freedom of religion" and the other not? We need some consistency America.

 

[Llenroc]

Call me uninformed, but I thought the USA was slow to follow the no-cut tactics of the so called civilized because many USA insurance companies still cover/partly cover the procedure.

I mean, if insurance covered breast enlargements and botox, wouldn't they be super common?
And if your pediatrician said, well, that will be $800, wouldn't you at least think before telling him that foreskin HAS to go?

My DH acquiesed to saying no-cut for our son after I insisted, as the person who pushed the baby out, that I got to decide. I just didn't want my baby to be any more cranky than necessary -being born and analyzed in the hospital seemed like enough stress. But that doesn't mean I think anyone who thinks their child should be circumcised is some sort of barbarian either.

But I'm not too keen on performing one...just like I'm not so sure I'd like to go implanting 5 embryos into someone, or aborting a fetus because it had downs, or installing those DD headlamps... I'm not saying "never", just that I'd rather not.

I should perhaps add that our preschooler does not yet seem interested in any differences in anatomy between dad and himself. He is still puzzled by the fact that girls do not have a penis, and occasionally wants to know more about where babies come from. I should think it won't be long and he'll be old enough that seeing dad in the shower will be basically an "ew, gross" moment anyhow.

Good choice. I hate to say that I've had the misfortune of assisting in some of these procedures. They were pretty ****ing barbaric. I've never seen babies cry as much during anything else in my life.

 

[Kai Zhur]

BTW circumcision is a useless procedure that exposes babies to risks of bleeding, infection, and in some some cases mutilation for absolutely no medical indication.

I agree with you, but what can be done about it to protect boys? Doctors aren't even prevented from (or disciplined for) performing a circumcision with no anesthesia or substandard anesthesia (topical EMLA). There is no evidence that the best anesthesia (a regional block) is administered in more than a small minority of cases. Newborn pain is still treated in a cavalier fashion, as is each person's autonomous right to genital integrity.

 

[Tired]

. . . but at the same time it's no problem if the Jewish community wants to circumcise all boys.

So you're saying it's a Jewish conspiracy?

 

[PeepshowJohnny]

So you're saying it's a Jewish conspiracy?

Medicine is controlled by a Zionist conspiracy! Alert the Internet!

 

[ml66uk]

So you're saying it's a Jewish conspiracy?

Medicine is controlled by a Zionist conspiracy! Alert the Internet!

It seems common for people to accuse intactivists of being anti-Semitic. We just want to protect children, whatever the religion of their parents. A boy in London, UK died last year after going into cardiac arrest just 15 minutes after Brit Shalom (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/feb/17/religion.world1). In New York, one baby died after it, and another suffered brain damage (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/545756).

While it's true that many of the most vocal proponents of infant male circumcision, historically and today, have been Jewish, not all Jewish people believe in circumcision. Brit Shalom is an alternative naming ceremony to celebrate the birth of baby boys to Jewish families.

These sites are all run by Jews opposed to routine circumcision of children:

http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/
http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/
http://www.circumcision.org/

 

[Tired]

It seems common for people to accuse intactivists of being anti-Semitic. We just want to protect children, whatever the religion of their parents. A boy in London, UK died last year after going into cardiac arrest just 15 minutes after Brit Shalom (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/feb/17/religion.world1). In New York, one baby died after it, and another suffered brain damage (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/545756).

So they're not just trying to mutilate children, they also want to kill him? Is that what you're getting at?

 

[Kai Zhur]

So they're not just trying to mutilate children, they also want to kill him? Is that what you're getting at?

If I said I liked baking apple pie, you'd suggest I condone throwing apple at cars from an overpass. When you can't argue successfully on merit, you act the joker. The fact is that circumcision leads to deaths and lesser injuries and complications. Such risks are unethical for a surgery which, by nearly unanimous agreement of medical professionals worldwide, is performed for cultural, not medical indication. An informed and consenting adult may ethically accept that risk for himself (or herself), but not for another person.

 

[Tired]

If I said I liked baking apple pie, you'd suggest I condone throwing apple at cars from an overpass. When you can't argue successfully on merit, you act the joker. The fact is that circumcision leads to deaths and lesser injuries and complications. Such risks are unethical for a surgery which, by nearly unanimous agreement of medical professionals worldwide, is performed for cultural, not medical indication. An informed and consenting adult may ethically accept that risk for himself (or herself), but not for another person.

You confuse me for someone who is trying to carry on a serious argument.

This issue is so unimportant, and you are so strident and serious about it, that I amuse myself by making absurdist statements in your direction.

Just so we're clear: I'm not trying to say anything about your position; I'm just laughing at you.

 

[Kai Zhur]

Just so we're clear: I'm not trying to say anything about your position; I'm just laughing at you.

I understand that. And I'm commenting on your reason for doing so. You laugh because you can make no effective argument on the merits. You call it unimportant for the same reason. The human right to genital integrity is important.

 

[Tired]

I understand that. And I'm commenting on your reason for doing so. You laugh because you can make no effective argument on the merits. You call it unimportant for the same reason. The human right to genital integrity is important.

Close: I laugh because there's no reason to make any effective argument on the merits. It's like arguing over boxers vs briefs. Silly.

("The human right to genital integrity". Dude, I'm rolling. Seriously. )

 

[Kai Zhur]

("The human right to genital integrity". Dude, I'm rolling. Seriously. )

You are not capable of making a reasoned and logical argument for why a male child doesn't have an inherent right to keep his whole sex organ. I don't fault you for that because nobody else can do it either. What's odd is that you feel compelled to repeatedly post to the effect that you have nothing to say about it.

 

[Tired]

You are not capable of making a reasoned and logical argument for why a male child doesn't have an inherent right to keep his whole sex organ.

God I love your posts.

 

[Kai Zhur]

God I love your posts.

Yes, but do you love my posts more than you hate admitting it's unethical for doctors to perform medically superfluous surgery on an infant's sex organ?

 

[Tired]

Yes, but do you love my posts more than you hate admitting it's unethical for doctors to perform medically superfluous surgery on an infant's sex organ?

I don't "hate admitting" anything. I view circumcision along the same lines as piercing a little girl's ears: benign, unimportant, and a matter of parental choice.

And for the record, breasts are a sex organ. The penis is the center of civilization.

 

[psy]

I don't "hate admitting" anything. I view circumcision along the same lines as piercing a little girl's ears: benign, unimportant, and a matter of parental choice.

And for the record, breasts are a sex organ. The penis is the center of civilization.

Ear piercings are usually done when the girl is older and often by her choice (with parental approval ...maybe). The hole that is made is very small and if left alone, it will heal over time. I don't see that happening to the foreskin.

 

[Kai Zhur]

I don't "hate admitting" anything. I view circumcision along the same lines as piercing a little girl's ears: benign, unimportant, and a matter of parental choice.

Circumcision ablates highly capable sensory apparatus [Sorrells]. That is not a benign effect. Your assessment fails to account for that crucial fact. As psy states, an ear piercing will heal itself, but more germane to this forum, physicians do not offer and perform ear piercings a part of their medical practice.

 

[Tired]

Circumcision ablates highly capable sensory apparatus [Sorrells]. That is not a benign effect. Your assessment fails to account for that crucial fact. As psy states, an ear piercing will heal itself, but more germane to this forum, physicians do not offer and perform ear piercings a part of their medical practice.

Nope, sorry, still not buying the pseudo-science.

And physicians would do ear piercing if it reimbursed at reasonable rates.

 

[Kai Zhur]

Nope, sorry, still not buying the pseudo-science. [evidence that the male foreskin has sensory capacity]

I know in some circles it is fashionable to reject objectively verifiable facts, but medical students? Seriously? That the male foreskin has sensory capacity is beyond dispute. It's rich with nerve endings. Fine touch sensory perception has been quantified, peer-reviewed, and published. There is no published evidence to the contrary. Finally, there are billions of men who have one and know unequivocally that it sensitive. Your claims are like those of a toddler who insists other people can't see him because his eyes are covered. There's something a little scary about someone in the medical profession so willing to ignore objective evidence in favor of repeatedly falsified myth.

 

[Tired]

I know in some circles it is fashionable to reject objectively verifiable facts, but medical students? Seriously? That the male foreskin has sensory capacity is beyond dispute. It's rich with nerve endings. Fine touch sensory perception has been quantified, peer-reviewed, and published. There is no published evidence to the contrary. Finally, there are billions of men who have one and know unequivocally that it sensitive. Your claims are like those of a toddler who insists other people can't see him because his eyes are covered. There's something a little scary about someone in the medical profession so willing to ignore objective evidence in favor of repeatedly falsified myth.

You pick and choose obviously slanted studies while ignoring those that contradict you.

And, most enjoyable, you ignore 5,000 years of normal, healthy males producing offspring and enjoying it the entire time.

I know you're not a doctor, but seriously, if you're trying to trick people into agreeing with you, you'll probably have more success with the Joe Six-Pack set.

 

[Kai Zhur]

You pick and choose obviously slanted studies while ignoring those that contradict you.

There are no studies which contradict the fact that the foreskin has sensory capacity. I expect you to ignore this fact, focus on something else instead, or fall back on just laughing again (which, while childish, did not presume your audience was stupid). What you will not do is cite your mythical study which, you would have us believe, finds the male foreskin devoid of sensation. The rest of us don't have a subscription to the Journal of Tired's Convenient Imagination (peer reviewed by the tooth fairy, now also dealing in foreskins), published only in your dreams.

 

[ml66uk]

You confuse me for someone who is trying to carry on a serious argument.

This issue is so unimportant, and you are so strident and serious about it, that I amuse myself by making absurdist statements in your direction.

Just so we're clear: I'm not trying to say anything about your position; I'm just laughing at you.

Proponents of female circumcision do the exact same thing. If they can't counter rational arguments, they resort to attacking the posters and suggesting they should have something better to do. Try debating with bloggers in Egypt and Malaysia that have just had, or are about to have their daughters circumcised. They make the exact same defence of the surgery in the first place, then make the exact same attacks on the people against it.

 

[Tired]

There are no studies which contradict the fact that the foreskin has sensory capacity. I expect you to ignore this fact, focus on something else instead, or fall back on just laughing again (which, while childish, did not presume your audience was stupid). What you will not do is cite your mythical study which, you would have us believe, finds the male foreskin devoid of sensation. The rest of us don't have a subscription to the Journal of Tired's Convenient Imagination (peer reviewed by the tooth fairy, now also dealing in foreskins), published only in your dreams.

The appendix and gall bladder have sensory capacity as well, but I am no more concerned about its removal that I am of the foreskin.

And seriously, two foreskin-loving users both registered in Jun 2008, neither of whom are physicians? You can just use one account you know, it's not like anyone will respect this lunacy any more because you pretend someone agrees with you.

 

[Kai Zhur]

The appendix and gall bladder have sensory capacity as well, but I am no more concerned about its removal that I am of the foreskin.

And seriously, two foreskin-loving users both registered in Jun 2008, neither of whom are physicians? You can just use one account you know, it's not like anyone will respect this lunacy any more because you pretend someone agrees with you.

Come one, man. The appendix and gall bladder are permanently internal organs. When was the last time you felt something with your appendix or gall bladder? Besides, would you operate on a child to remove those organs without a medical indication? Your conspiracy theory that I have multiple accounts is pretty amusing, but false.

 

[cpants]

The appendix and gall bladder have sensory capacity as well, but I am no more concerned about its removal that I am of the foreskin.

And seriously, two foreskin-loving users both registered in Jun 2008, neither of whom are physicians? You can just use one account you know, it's not like anyone will respect this lunacy any more because you pretend someone agrees with you.

Last time I checked, we don't prophylactically remove the appendix and gall bladder at birth to avoid appendicitis and cholecystitis. We could do this, but we don't because surgery has risks and causes pain. Yet we remove the foreskin in infancy to reduce the risk of UTI, which can easily be treated with antibiotics, by the way. As an adult, would you accept the risk of penile disfigurement, wound infection, loss of penis, even death, knowing that you would avoid a few UTI's?

Nope, sorry, still not buying the pseudo-science.

And physicians would do ear piercing if it reimbursed at reasonable rates.

Physicians should not be reimbursed for performing circumcisions. Maybe they shouldn't be illegal, but we don't need to pay for surgeries with no medical indication.

 

[Llenroc]

Tired: Regardless of when these guys registered and what line of work they're in, their arguments are pretty sound and I agree with them. You seem to be almost personally threatened by this.

 

[Faebinder]

I actually agree with Tired. There are more pros than con. Please stop comparing appendectomies to circumcisions.... you are not sedating babies for circumcisions and you are certaintly not intubating them or going through 7 layers of an abdominal cavity... it's like comparing removal of a wart from a genital area to an appendectomy.

 

[Llenroc]

I actually agree with Tired. There are more pros than con. Please stop comparing appendectomies to circumcisions.... you are not sedating babies for circumcisions and you are certaintly not intubating them or going through 7 layers of an abdominal cavity... it's like comparing removal of a wart from a genital area to an appendectomy.

Actual Tired is the one that started comparing the two.

 

[Kai Zhur]

There are more pros than con. [to circumcision

On what do you base this conclusion, given that medical associations worldwide choose not to recommend it after examining the potential benefits and the risks? And what if the patient regrets missing part of his penis, which was taken without medical cause and without his consent?

 

[Tired]

Tired: Regardless of when these guys registered and what line of work they're in, their arguments are pretty sound and I agree with them. You seem to be almost personally threatened by this.

Not threatened, amused and fascinated.

They (it's actually only one dude, but I'll humor you with the plural) come to a medical website despite having no medical training. They cite bizarre single-issue groups and slanted, obscure literature. Yet at the same time they are quite well-spoken, and make a lot of sense as long as you ignore obvious things (2000 years of healthy, circumcised men who enjoy sex; incredibly low complication rates; etc).

But most of all, I am amazed that "they" can be so persistent on such a minor issue.

It's like proctologists. How could they be so fascinated with this one small little thing? Why would they devote so much time to learning so much about the insignificant? What has gone so wrong in their lives that all they can think about is this one thing that isn't so much as a blip on the radar of 99.999999% of people?

The psychopathology is awe-inspiring. I am simulataneously impressed, amused, and scared. I continue posting here so they don't get bored on leave. This is a living psychiatric case-study, and I love it.

 

[ml66uk]

Not threatened, amused and fascinated.

They (it's actually only one dude, but I'll humor you with the plural) come to a medical website despite having no medical training. They cite bizarre single-issue groups and slanted, obscure literature. Yet at the same time they are quite well-spoken, and make a lot of sense as long as you ignore obvious things (2000 years of healthy, circumcised men who enjoy sex; incredibly low complication rates; etc).

But most of all, I am amazed that "they" can be so persistent on such a minor issue.

It's like proctologists. How could they be so fascinated with this one small little thing? Why would they devote so much time to learning so much about the insignificant? What has gone so wrong in their lives that all they can think about is this one thing that isn't so much as a blip on the radar of 99.999999% of people?

The psychopathology is awe-inspiring. I am simulataneously impressed, amused, and scared. I continue posting here so they don't get bored on leave. This is a living psychiatric case-study, and I love it.

Umm, we're not the same person, and we believe this is not insignificant, for reasons we've both explained at length, for example here. It's a human rights issue as well as a medical issue.

"that isn't so much as a blip on the radar of 99.999999% of people?"
I think you'll find that over 50% of people have fairly strong opinions on the subject.

Most of your post is another ad hominem attack. Please try to stick to the issues. You're being equally "persistent" btw.

"bizarre single-issue groups and slanted, obscure literature"??
In this post, I cited the:

• American Academy of Family Physicians
• American Urological Association
• Canadian Paediatric Society
• Royal Australasian College of Physicians
• British Medical Association
• National Health Service (UK)
• Canadian Children's Rights Council

Did you actually go to any of those links, and read what they said? Are you not curious why the circumcision rates have dropped so much in the USA, Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, and why non-religious circumcision never became popular in most of Europe? It only started in the 19th century btw for reasons I talked about in this post.

 

[Llenroc]

Not threatened, amused and fascinated.

They (it's actually only one dude, but I'll humor you with the plural) come to a medical website despite having no medical training. They cite bizarre single-issue groups and slanted, obscure literature. Yet at the same time they are quite well-spoken, and make a lot of sense as long as you ignore obvious things (2000 years of healthy, circumcised men who enjoy sex; incredibly low complication rates; etc).

But most of all, I am amazed that "they" can be so persistent on such a minor issue.

It's like proctologists. How could they be so fascinated with this one small little thing? Why would they devote so much time to learning so much about the insignificant? What has gone so wrong in their lives that all they can think about is this one thing that isn't so much as a blip on the radar of 99.999999% of people?

The psychopathology is awe-inspiring. I am simulataneously impressed, amused, and scared. I continue posting here so they don't get bored on leave. This is a living psychiatric case-study, and I love it.

Well despite your - alleged - medical training, these guys are cleaning your clock as you keep digging a bigger hole for yourself. They've got arguments that make sense, evidence from credible sources, as well as the backing of the medical community. You've got what? Name calling? Keep it up.

 

[Tired]

Well despite your - alleged - medical training, these guys are cleaning your clock as you keep digging a bigger hole for yourself.

Obviously, hence the widespread support they have garnered on this thread.

 

[Tired]

It's a human rights issue as well as a medical issue.

See, these lines are just classic, and they keep me coming back here again and again, long after the rest of SDN has rolled their eyes and moved on to more important threads (like that "poop hotdog" one).

Please, keep posting.