If you intentionally do not recognize it as a legitimate medical procedure with lots of science backed behind it, then you’re purposefully spreading misinfo. That’s just a fact. Just like how some people in this thread are saying it reduces sexual pleasure, scientific evidence states this is not true. It’s also significantly safer and less risk when they’re a baby. These are just peer-reviewed objective facts that have been extensively tested and confirmed.
“You know, I’m really tired of having to clean my nails and trim them. I know, I should just cut my fucking fingertips off. That way I don’t have to worry about pesky things like dirt or germs living under the nails!”
ignoring bodily autonomy and the right for your OWN CHILD to choose what their penis will look like for a medical procedure that only should be used when a phimosis diagnosis has been made or when you join specific religions (and not for “so he looks like dad” or “my religions imaginary friend collects foreskins of infants”)
When my son (2) was born there was decent pressure to circumcise, we were asked leading up to birth, before birth at hospital many times, and many times after.
I’m sure there’s plenty of single mothers who don’t know any better and just eventually agree. I’ve been told hospitals sell the cut off for woman’s make up stuff
I don’t know where you’re from, but in the US, hospitals are strictly forbidden from doing anything with biological material post-procedure except 1) biopsy, 2) disposing it in accordance with biohazard containment practices, or 3) limited instances of release to the patient (think kidney stone).
Nobody is selling infants foeskins for makeup. That’s fucking stupid conspiracy bullshit.
Ah, let’s see… An SEO article from a clinic in India about the possibilities of what can be done (with absolutely zero citations), a reddit thread and the Coup de Grace, Oprah, who famously gave us “Dr.” Oz. I’m gonna go ahead and not choose to give a bunch of credibility to those sources.
It’s kind of you to worry about the aesthetics of your child’s penis, which studies have shown that it improves body image and sexual satisfaction anyways. You should really leave the medical suggestions to the professionals. There’s so much anti-science in this thread going on, I’d assume that I was in a crazy 5G anti vax conspiracy bullshit forum. What is it about medical scientific evidence that makes people so upset? All I’m doing is repeating and sharing established medical studies after all, but apparently that makes people a little emotional. Kind of like vaccinations!
Suppose we should just not name children until they’re old enough to choose their own name too. We’re talking about some fuckin skin on the tip of the dick lol. Most will never even know the difference until they go see it in a health class or Google what the differences even look like.
What are the pros and cons here again? The cons of the situation is that they might end up wanting some extra skin at the tip of the dick for whatever reason. The pros is health and self confidence improvement. The pros outweigh the cons here, it’s a no brainer. It’s a simple medical procedure has been factually proven to improve health and self confidence, and it’s by far the safest to perform on a new born.
This is the most idiotic thing I’ve ever read. They can change their name if they want to. How old they have to be is different from country to country.
Equating naming a child with cutting off stuff from their bodies is fucking stupid.
like @CurlyMoustache@lemmy.world said: names can be changed. and if your confidence is based on a mutilated sexual organ, then go cut yourself as much as you like, but leave others alone. don’t do something irreversible to someone without their consent.
i dont like my given birth name, i could legally change if it i please. In fact i don’t like the concept of legal names much at all, but thats a different story.
Lets throw in some similar cases here. Ear lobes, why not just chop those off at birth? They dangle around weirdly and are places to put jewelry. Which can cause injury.
Ever heard of scarification? It’s like a tattoo, but subtractive instead of additive.
You ever heard of penile subincision? You just yeet a massive slit into the bottom of the penis, that leads into the urethra.
Why not just do those things to children upon birth?
Maybe go back and read all the text you ignored about the other benefits. Would love to see you link any established peer-reviewed studies that can back up your neanderthal level reading comprehension.
I don’t give a fuck about those “benefits” which have miniscule impact and can absolutely be achieved by means other than cutting a baby’s foreskin.
Adults can cut their dick off if they want, surely a lot of men would do it if those benefits are so impressive.
Parents should not have the freedom to mutilate their babies because they say so. Only if a doctor recommends it because of an actual disease (phimosis or whatever).
That is basic ethics. Don’t make unneeded permanent choices for a baby. If it is a decision that can easily wait until the baby is an adult, it is evil to make it for them.
Honest question, did you read this study before you posted it? The sample size is 37 Turkish men who voluntarily applied for circumcision. Do you not find that sample to be extremely small? Don’t you think there would be some inherent bias when assessing the psychological effect in people who had chosen to undergo the procedure? If anything, this study reinforces that circumcision should be left to the individual to choose, rather than having the procedure done against their will as an infant.
I’ve been reading your comments, it’s amazing how someone can link an article to 37 grown men voluntarily circumcising themselves and use that as evidence towards why children would like to be circumcised.
Sure. As I said: adults can cut of anything they want. Babies cannot decide for themselves. It is immoral and barbaric to cut of parts from the bodies of babies.
Condoms gives insanely more protection than a circumcised penis. The health benefits are therefore just a fart in the wind and should not be used as a an argument for cutting people without their consent. Teach healthy sex practices in schools
Science is different than peer reviewed science. The STI study has some big problems (especially moral problems) - one practical problem though is the hiv test in the study isn’t accurate for some time (3 months I think) and that messes with their data and wasn’t accounted for properly (some test candidates definitely had HIV before the study). Another huge oversight was that a freshly cut man isn’t going to have sex for weeks while he heals, deceasing the chances of contracting HIV. Another sign that something is wrong is European countries that have less HIV than the USA. But even if it was guaranteed that you contact HIV 10% less often if circumcised, that’s still not even close to a good enough benefit to justify the procedure.
The “data” on why circumcision is beneficial is mostly just cut men trying to justify why they’re superior and is biased. The sensitivity being the same claims are silly. Studies done are controversial because measuring sensitivity is hard. A big red flag is reading testimants of adults who got cut - usually they say it was super painful while healing, then crazy sensitive, underwear was uncomfortable and they had trouble lasting during sex. But a couple years later and they’d lost sensitivity. Underwear feels fine, refactory period goes up. This is because of keratinization of the glans of the penis. Similar to a callous on skin tissue
Cum, I love how your replies are more than happy to pick apart your sources without providing any of their own. A casual scroll through the other comments will reveal that most people who weren’t circumcized at birth have issues with it or regret having to have the procedure done later in life.
There’s a reason the procedure is so ubiquitous for so long, the science and health research is there to prove it. Same way getting vaccines is mandatory in the US for going to school. Same way abortion would be if politicians didn’t keep getting involved in legitimate medical research. These procedures have been studied and peer reviewed for decades by experts, best leave it to them. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/articles/2012/10/greater-benefits-of-infant-circumcision
If you want to have a real argument with myself and cum (lmao) bring your own sources and maybe other people will take you seriously.
Exactly, you get it lol. This is a funny topic because you can simply drop a fact sheet by medical professionals that all overwhelmingly agree on this topic, and then people will lose their mind. That’s why I’m only interested in looking for scientifically backed viewpoints instead of people getting so emotional. Reality disagrees with their traditions so they really hate it.
The new CDC guidelines highlight methodologically flawed studies from Africa that have no relevance to the United States. They chose to ignore studies that were conducted in the United States and show no link between circumcision and the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV (Thomas et al., 2004).
Media literacy necessitates consideration of opposing viewpoints from reputable sources. Not all “experts” agree with the CDC. Source.
If you intentionally do not recognize it as a legitimate medical procedure with lots of science backed behind it, then you’re purposefully spreading misinfo. That’s just a fact. Just like how some people in this thread are saying it reduces sexual pleasure, scientific evidence states this is not true. It’s also significantly safer and less risk when they’re a baby. These are just peer-reviewed objective facts that have been extensively tested and confirmed.
https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/58456/cdc_58456_DS1.pdf
Haha the irony of you coming out so strongly after your original statement is gold.
it’s absolutely amazing. what a cockgoblin.
Not really, I’m open to seeing any evidence as to why the CDC is factually wrong.
“You know, I’m really tired of having to clean my nails and trim them. I know, I should just cut my fucking fingertips off. That way I don’t have to worry about pesky things like dirt or germs living under the nails!”
lol ‘facts’
Don’t ask me, I think we should just cut the whole thing off.
Hey, as long as you own what you’re cutting I’m cool
No. All of 'em. Americans do go far enough. Everyone should walk around with little nubs.
ignoring bodily autonomy and the right for your OWN CHILD to choose what their penis will look like for a medical procedure that only should be used when a phimosis diagnosis has been made or when you join specific religions (and not for “so he looks like dad” or “my religions imaginary friend collects foreskins of infants”)
When my son (2) was born there was decent pressure to circumcise, we were asked leading up to birth, before birth at hospital many times, and many times after.
I’m sure there’s plenty of single mothers who don’t know any better and just eventually agree. I’ve been told hospitals sell the cut off for woman’s make up stuff
I don’t know where you’re from, but in the US, hospitals are strictly forbidden from doing anything with biological material post-procedure except 1) biopsy, 2) disposing it in accordance with biohazard containment practices, or 3) limited instances of release to the patient (think kidney stone).
Nobody is selling infants foeskins for makeup. That’s fucking stupid conspiracy bullshit.
But do they charge for the procedure?
https://www.allohealth.care/healthfeed/sexual-anatomy/do-hospitals-sell-foreskin
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/hnzg5a/what_do_you_think_hospitals_do_with_foreskins/
Doesn’t seem like bullshit, however it is used for more than make up, like skin grafts and bio science. Apparently Oprah Famously said she uses a cream with foreskin in it
Ah, let’s see… An SEO article from a clinic in India about the possibilities of what can be done (with absolutely zero citations), a reddit thread and the Coup de Grace, Oprah, who famously gave us “Dr.” Oz. I’m gonna go ahead and not choose to give a bunch of credibility to those sources.
It’s kind of you to worry about the aesthetics of your child’s penis, which studies have shown that it improves body image and sexual satisfaction anyways. You should really leave the medical suggestions to the professionals. There’s so much anti-science in this thread going on, I’d assume that I was in a crazy 5G anti vax conspiracy bullshit forum. What is it about medical scientific evidence that makes people so upset? All I’m doing is repeating and sharing established medical studies after all, but apparently that makes people a little emotional. Kind of like vaccinations!
this is NOT about aesthetics. this is about robbing a child of a deeply personal choice.
Suppose we should just not name children until they’re old enough to choose their own name too. We’re talking about some fuckin skin on the tip of the dick lol. Most will never even know the difference until they go see it in a health class or Google what the differences even look like.
What are the pros and cons here again? The cons of the situation is that they might end up wanting some extra skin at the tip of the dick for whatever reason. The pros is health and self confidence improvement. The pros outweigh the cons here, it’s a no brainer. It’s a simple medical procedure has been factually proven to improve health and self confidence, and it’s by far the safest to perform on a new born.
This is the most idiotic thing I’ve ever read. They can change their name if they want to. How old they have to be is different from country to country.
Equating naming a child with cutting off stuff from their bodies is fucking stupid.
I had to laugh when they used naming a child as an example. What a dipshit.
thanks for writing down what i was thinking lol
like @CurlyMoustache@lemmy.world said: names can be changed. and if your confidence is based on a mutilated sexual organ, then go cut yourself as much as you like, but leave others alone. don’t do something irreversible to someone without their consent.
i dont like my given birth name, i could legally change if it i please. In fact i don’t like the concept of legal names much at all, but thats a different story.
Lets throw in some similar cases here. Ear lobes, why not just chop those off at birth? They dangle around weirdly and are places to put jewelry. Which can cause injury.
Ever heard of scarification? It’s like a tattoo, but subtractive instead of additive.
You ever heard of penile subincision? You just yeet a massive slit into the bottom of the penis, that leads into the urethra.
Why not just do those things to children upon birth?
Multilating childrens genitals for appearance is pretty fucked up.
That choice should be left to themselves and no one else. Unless absolutely necessary of course.
The supposed benefits are very very small and the majority of the world is doing absolutely fine without removing the foreskin of children.
Maybe go back and read all the text you ignored about the other benefits. Would love to see you link any established peer-reviewed studies that can back up your neanderthal level reading comprehension.
I don’t give a fuck about those “benefits” which have miniscule impact and can absolutely be achieved by means other than cutting a baby’s foreskin.
Adults can cut their dick off if they want, surely a lot of men would do it if those benefits are so impressive.
Parents should not have the freedom to mutilate their babies because they say so. Only if a doctor recommends it because of an actual disease (phimosis or whatever).
That is basic ethics. Don’t make unneeded permanent choices for a baby. If it is a decision that can easily wait until the baby is an adult, it is evil to make it for them.
Honest question, did you read this study before you posted it? The sample size is 37 Turkish men who voluntarily applied for circumcision. Do you not find that sample to be extremely small? Don’t you think there would be some inherent bias when assessing the psychological effect in people who had chosen to undergo the procedure? If anything, this study reinforces that circumcision should be left to the individual to choose, rather than having the procedure done against their will as an infant.
That’s a study of 30 turkish dudes…
you’re an idiot and so is anyone that agrees to circumcision for an infant.
Very level headed statement after being shown evidence
lol ‘evidence’
I’ve been reading your comments, it’s amazing how someone can link an article to 37 grown men voluntarily circumcising themselves and use that as evidence towards why children would like to be circumcised.
You fucking dumb my guy.
Or a lobbyist for big foreskin.
That document is regarding the spread of STIs. There’s plenty of other methods to avoid those that don’t involve cutting part of your dick off.
Like washing?
Sure. As I said: adults can cut of anything they want. Babies cannot decide for themselves. It is immoral and barbaric to cut of parts from the bodies of babies.
Condoms gives insanely more protection than a circumcised penis. The health benefits are therefore just a fart in the wind and should not be used as a an argument for cutting people without their consent. Teach healthy sex practices in schools
Science is different than peer reviewed science. The STI study has some big problems (especially moral problems) - one practical problem though is the hiv test in the study isn’t accurate for some time (3 months I think) and that messes with their data and wasn’t accounted for properly (some test candidates definitely had HIV before the study). Another huge oversight was that a freshly cut man isn’t going to have sex for weeks while he heals, deceasing the chances of contracting HIV. Another sign that something is wrong is European countries that have less HIV than the USA. But even if it was guaranteed that you contact HIV 10% less often if circumcised, that’s still not even close to a good enough benefit to justify the procedure.
The “data” on why circumcision is beneficial is mostly just cut men trying to justify why they’re superior and is biased. The sensitivity being the same claims are silly. Studies done are controversial because measuring sensitivity is hard. A big red flag is reading testimants of adults who got cut - usually they say it was super painful while healing, then crazy sensitive, underwear was uncomfortable and they had trouble lasting during sex. But a couple years later and they’d lost sensitivity. Underwear feels fine, refactory period goes up. This is because of keratinization of the glans of the penis. Similar to a callous on skin tissue
Cum, I love how your replies are more than happy to pick apart your sources without providing any of their own. A casual scroll through the other comments will reveal that most people who weren’t circumcized at birth have issues with it or regret having to have the procedure done later in life.
There’s a reason the procedure is so ubiquitous for so long, the science and health research is there to prove it. Same way getting vaccines is mandatory in the US for going to school. Same way abortion would be if politicians didn’t keep getting involved in legitimate medical research. These procedures have been studied and peer reviewed for decades by experts, best leave it to them. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/articles/2012/10/greater-benefits-of-infant-circumcision
If you want to have a real argument with myself and cum (lmao) bring your own sources and maybe other people will take you seriously.
Exactly, you get it lol. This is a funny topic because you can simply drop a fact sheet by medical professionals that all overwhelmingly agree on this topic, and then people will lose their mind. That’s why I’m only interested in looking for scientifically backed viewpoints instead of people getting so emotional. Reality disagrees with their traditions so they really hate it.
Circumcision is the exception. I’m sure the 60% of uncircumcised men across the world live tortured lives. Source
And?
And you’re profoundly misinformed
How is listening to the CDC being misinformed lol
Media literacy necessitates consideration of opposing viewpoints from reputable sources. Not all “experts” agree with the CDC. Source.
Of course they don’t. Still, the CDC is very reputable and I trust them over it. It’s also ridiculous to say the CDC is misinformation.