Are you American? Are you circumcized? Then you NEED to watch this

[Xzi]

Ironic that this thread turned into a circlejerk of manufactured outrage. People list all the supposed "pros" of being uncircumcised, but what are the objective cons of being circumcised? I've only heard the one, that it decreases sensitivity, but that isn't objective and you'd have a helluva hard time proving that using the scientific method.

 

[comput3rus3r]

Ironic that this thread turned into a circlejerk of manufactured outrage. People list all the supposed "pros" of being uncircumcised, but what are the objective cons of being circumcised? I've only heard the one, that it decreases sensitivity, but that isn't objective and you'd have a helluva hard time proving that using the scientific method.

you can make the same moronic argument for "female circumcision"

 

[Xzi]

you can make the same moronic argument for "female circumcision"

AFAIK it's not nearly as common and it's never been a cultural thing for the US. Your argument that circumcised individuals should feel "victimized" is what's moronic. People will decide for themselves if they want to play the victim, that's not your choice to make for others.

 

[KingVamp]

Ironic that this thread turned into a circlejerk of manufactured outrage. People list all the supposed "pros" of being uncircumcised, but what are the objective cons of being circumcised? I've only heard the one, that it decreases sensitivity, but that isn't objective and you'd have a helluva hard time proving that using the scientific method.

Doesn't help that some are basically saying you are in denial, if you disagree, or using unequal comparisons. Not that I agree with this argument either way, but still.

 

[SG854]

Because I’ll trust the guy on YouTube over medical journals

The video feels like that assembly in high school where they tell you sex is bad.

This article you linked
https://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20141202/cdc-endorses-circumcision-for-health-reasons#1

is exactly what the guy talked about in the video. For the scientific illiterate population that don't know how to interpret data is exactly why they think the 50-60% number is good. But they came to the 60% number by using relative risk reduction. Actual HIV risk percentages are 2.5% for intact men, and 1.2% for circumcised men. A 1.3% difference, very little benefit for circumcision. They came to the 60% by using this math formula 2.5%-1.2%/2.5% which gives you about 60%, actual number is 0.52% if you do the math on a calculator, which is between 50-60%. So basically 1.2% is about 60% less than 2.5%.

U.S. has one of the highest rates of circumcised males yet they have one of the highest rates of HIV. Circumcision does little to deter from getting HIV.
And you can reduce HIV by using condoms, so no need to circumcise. So circumcising to reduce HIV should not be included as a plus because there are better ways to do it.

 

[AxlSt00pid]

(unless in EXTREMELY serious cases of phimosis)

Thanks for making me be even more worried about my problem than I was

 

[comput3rus3r]

AFAIK it's not nearly as common and it's never been a cultural thing for the US. Your argument that circumcised individuals should feel "victimized" is what's moronic. People will decide for themselves if they want to play the victim, that's not your choice to make for others.

What's moronic is you assumption that infants are not victims when they're getting their genitals mutilated without choice. I'm sorry it happened to you, but just because you're ok with it doesn't mean it's ok to do it to others. I'm willing to bet the all the circumcised males posting on this thread didn't watch the entire video. This is is barbaric and shouldn't exist in the 21st century period.

 

[dimmidice]

Ironic that this thread turned into a circlejerk of manufactured outrage. People list all the supposed "pros" of being uncircumcised, but what are the objective cons of being circumcised? I've only heard the one, that it decreases sensitivity, but that isn't objective and you'd have a helluva hard time proving that using the scientific method.

Here's the bottom line. You can get a circumcision later in life. Undoing it is pretty much not possible.

 

[Xzi]

Here's the bottom line. You can get a circumcision later in life. Undoing it is pretty much not possible.

Even if it was an option, there'd be no real motivation to reattach some foreskin. If a guy is going to get surgery on his penis as an adult, it's either to enlarge it or remove it as part of transitioning to a woman.

 

[Deleted User]

Here's the bottom line. You can get a circumcision later in life. Undoing it is pretty much not possible.

There is actually something called Foreskin regeneration. The point of it is to stretch the skin so it does some mitosis or whatever.

 

[dimmidice]

There is actually something called Foreskin regeneration. The point of it is to stretch the skin so it does some mitosis or whatever.

I saw that on penn and tellers. It's not foreskin. It's an approximation of it.

 

[pressatoattack]

Yes I am American, yes I had the tip snipped. No I don't care.

 

[dimmidice]

Yes I am American, yes I had the tip snipped. No I don't care.

And you felt is so important to tell us you dont care you made an account just for it?

 

[sarkwalvein]

Ironic that this thread turned into a circlejerk of manufactured outrage. People list all the supposed "pros" of being uncircumcised, but what are the objective cons of being circumcised? I've only heard the one, that it decreases sensitivity, but that isn't objective and you'd have a helluva hard time proving that using the scientific method.

I think the only thing that would create annoyance (not rage really, I couldn't care less about other people and their ways lately) is when people justify male circumcision on "scientifically proven benefits" that are fake.
It is weird, it is like they try to find a high moral ground or something by saying "no, it's due to science".
If people just stated it is because of tradition, or looks (whatever), or in order to avoid discrimination (that is sick, but I think @x65943's point is valid), well, that sounds honest and shouldn't be a problem, but why trying to seek a fake high moral ground? That is something between nauseating and cringeworthy.

IMHO, this is not much different than opening earring holes in babies' earlobes. With the same "benefits" and "disadvantages". It is not that important, as long as people know that the real reasons for it is personal preference/choice and not due to some fake health advantage.

 

[pressatoattack]

And you felt is so important to tell us you dont care you made an account just for it?

Well, yes of course. Because I'm an American, so EVERYONE needs to hear my opinion

 

[sarkwalvein]

Well, yes of course. Because I'm an American, so EVERYONE needs to hear my opinion

lol

 

[RHOPKINS13]

Ironic that this thread turned into a circlejerk of manufactured outrage. People list all the supposed "pros" of being uncircumcised, but what are the objective cons of being circumcised? I've only heard the one, that it decreases sensitivity, but that isn't objective and you'd have a helluva hard time proving that using the scientific method.

Cons of being circumcised? How about the risk of death, over 100 babies die every year in the United States due to circumcision. Some babies have contracted HIV or herpes from a mohel during brit milah. Lots of baby boys have other circumcision complications, like accidentally cutting the entire head of the penis off, or cutting too much skin off or cutting it unevenly.

Aside from that, circumcising an infant inflicts trauma and causes brain damage.

There have been multiple cases of people who got circumcised later in life as an adult and later said they regret it, and that it does decrease sensitivity. Of course, not many adults voluntarily go for circumcision, so there's really not enough for a scientific study. Also, from what I've heard, at first when they get circumcised they actually do have higher sensitivity because their glans, which is supposed to be an internal organ, is exposed. But a few years later after it's dried up and keratinized it ends up with much less sensitivity than before.

You also lose the foreskin's gliding action and lubricating functionality.

AFAIK it's not nearly as common and it's never been a cultural thing for the US. Your argument that circumcised individuals should feel "victimized" is what's moronic. People will decide for themselves if they want to play the victim, that's not your choice to make for others.

Female circumcision wasn't outlawed in the US until 1996, and there are still occasionally people that get their baby girls circumcised regardless (obviously in secret, not at a hospital). You may be surprised that some people are using the fact that boy circumcision is legal to argue that female circumcision should be legal too.

There are different methods of female circumcision, most of which are less traumatic than our current most popular form of male circumcision. Some forms of female circumcision are comparable to a pin prick, just enough for a few drops of blood.

But it's not a matter of which one is worse than the other. As far as I'm concerned they're both human rights violations and both of them should be illegal.

 

[Xzi]

Cons of being circumcised? How about the risk of death, over 100 babies die every year in the United States due to circumcision. Some babies have contracted HIV or herpes from a mohel during brit milah. Lots of baby boys have other circumcision complications, like accidentally cutting the entire head of the penis off, or cutting too much skin off or cutting it unevenly.

Aside from that, circumcising an infant inflicts trauma and causes brain damage.

Honestly I couldn't help but tune you out after this point, this much hyperbole leads to a "boy who cried wolf" situation. Same deal with comput3rus3r repeatedly calling circumcision "mutilation," which just belittles real genital mutilation in the world.

 

[ItsMetaKnight]

You didn't watch the video.

That is very correct. I couldn’t care less about this topic. And I’m not American.
I only posted because it’s laughable to see stuff like this on what used to be an underground scene forum.

 

[comput3rus3r]

Honestly I couldn't help but tune you out after this point, this much hyperbole leads to a "boy who cried wolf" situation. Same deal with comput3rus3r repeatedly calling circumcision "mutilation," which just belittles real genital mutilation in the world.

fucking ironic since you're belittling male genital mutilation.