(June 12, 2016 at 10:29 am)robvalue Wrote: I have many more moral arguments to make, especially about what kind of messages you're sending to your kid by making that decision so they "fit in". But now I want to do some maths.

Let's be incredibly generous and say that by the time it's sharing its dick with other kids for some reason, 85% of other kids are cut.

You leave your kid intact. What is the probability they are the only kid in the group who is not cut?

If the group consists of N other kids, the probability they are all cut is (0.85)^N

5 other kids: 44%

10 other kids: 20%

15 other kids: 9%

These are some pretty narrow margins for cutting your kid. Especially since in reality the percentage will very likely have gone down, so the chances here will also go down.

It's even possible you'll end up with them in the minority. You're gambling, essentially.

Let me help you out with some math stats. The rate of circumcision in America now is only 58%, down from 85% in the 70's. It's steadily droping every year. His child will actually be the odd man out by the time he's in school.

(June 12, 2016 at 8:47 am)Heatheness Wrote:

(June 11, 2016 at 11:54 pm)Losty Wrote: Of course it wasn't but they all said it was and had I not known I'd have had him circumcised not realizing it was unnecessary. My point wasn't that it's never necessary. Just that there's a massive amount of ignorance about it even in the medical field. The 2 doctors who weren't urologists even thought it was a medical emergency that my son's foreskin wasn't retracting and they treated me like some horrible neglectful mother when I told them it's not supposed to retract.

Yes there are medically necessary reason for circumcisions. My grandson's foreskin was attached to the opening of his penis and could not be drawn back without tearing the skin and the foreskin was not long enough on that side, it was pulling his penis down to a curved position. It would not be able to extend. They didn't circumcise him at birth because of this. They recommended he see a urologist surgeon. The urologist said the operation would wait until he was 6 months old because he would have to be put under and reconstruction of the glans skins and foreskin would be necessary.

At 6months he had his surgery. His is fine now with plenty of skin for normal use of his penis and not even a scar on the glans now. There are medical reason for this kind of surgery, I simply object to the non-medical reason. Fad is not a reasonable reason.

I feel weird about how you're seeming to think we disagree about this. Do you? Because we don't.

I know there are medical reasons to circumcise. I was only making a point about how, where I live, doctors are very ignorant about the whole thing. They give people terrible advice on how to care for their newborn sons when they're uncircumcised. It's a standard form they give when you leave the hospital that tells you if his foreskin doesn't retract to take him to the doctor. It has been a long time since then (almost 7 years now) maybe they've gotten better.

(June 12, 2016 at 12:17 am)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(June 11, 2016 at 10:23 pm)Losty Wrote: I love whenever people say sought instead of sort. I always read their post in a snooty upperclass southern person's accent.

This made me laugh for three solid minutes.

(June 12, 2016 at 12:17 am)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(June 11, 2016 at 10:23 pm)Losty Wrote: I love whenever people say sought instead of sort. I always read their post in a snooty upperclass southern person's accent.

This made me laugh for three solid minutes.

I am proud of making zeh joke that made you laugh for zeh total of 6 solid minutes

(June 12, 2016 at 10:39 am)Losty Wrote:

(June 12, 2016 at 8:47 am)Heatheness Wrote: Yes there are medically necessary reason for circumcisions. My grandson's foreskin was attached to the opening of his penis and could not be drawn back without tearing the skin and the foreskin was not long enough on that side, it was pulling his penis down to a curved position. It would not be able to extend. They didn't circumcise him at birth because of this. They recommended he see a urologist surgeon. The urologist said the operation would wait until he was 6 months old because he would have to be put under and reconstruction of the glans skins and foreskin would be necessary.

At 6months he had his surgery. His is fine now with plenty of skin for normal use of his penis and not even a scar on the glans now. There are medical reason for this kind of surgery, I simply object to the non-medical reason. Fad is not a reasonable reason.

I feel weird about how you're seeming to think we disagree about this. Do you? Because we don't.

I know there are medical reasons to circumcise. I was only making a point about how, where I live, doctors are very ignorant about the whole thing. They give people terrible advice on how to care for their newborn sons when they're uncircumcised. It's a standard form they give when you leave the hospital that tells you if his foreskin doesn't retract to take him to the doctor. It has been a long time since then (almost 7 years now) maybe they've gotten better.

No, we don't disagree.

I was just explaining the differences between necessary and unnecessary and that sometimes necessary is just that.

I was confused at your original post I responded to but when you replied to me, I understood what you meant. Peace.

Doctors go by what they think is the consensus of their profession in my opinion ..... If most doctors advise to circumcise and there is a problem no one would raise an eyebrow as their advise followed the current consensus .... If they advise against circumcision, regardless of how low the risks are it is a high probability a problem may arise because of the number of parents they will be advising  .... Most doctors will take the least detrimental risk to their own career regardless of their personal opinions.

Note if the procedure was so beneficial why is it virtually only the USA that recommend this procedure other than for medical reasons if they should occur (I have omitted religious grounds as that shouldn't be an issue here) ?

(June 11, 2016 at 9:49 pm)Homeless Nutter Wrote:

(June 11, 2016 at 9:12 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: I voted yes, much cleaner look [...]

Really - that's an argument? "Cleaner look"? Pray tell - how does one measure the "cleanliness" of a look of a penis? Because it sounds like an arbitrary  value judgement to me - the kind of rationalization someone would make up, if they wanted to justify a preconceived notion, with no actual facts available. Personally - I think cut d*ck looks sad, ugly, unnatural, and dirty - not only because people, who had it done seem to think, that they don't have to wash it now, but also because the head scrapes against dirty underwear all the time...

But hey - whatever helps you sleep at night, without the urge to punch your mom in the mouth for mutilating your body ...

Cut dicks look like naked cats, I can confirm.

(June 12, 2016 at 8:27 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(June 11, 2016 at 8:05 pm)Losty Wrote: Studies that are peer reviewed. And done outside of America.

Still, even from your own link to the AAP earlier they say there's not enough benefit to do this routinely.

To be fair, studies done outside of America and on non-Americans are not considered to be generalizable to this population.   I had not seen this AAP link before, and I don't think it's right to dismiss it just because we don't like what it says.  If we, as skeptics, are not going to consider scientific research from a reputable, national medical organization, then we are no better than the crazy Christians who deny evolution research because the source has an "agenda."  

I didn't dismiss it because I don't like what it says. It says 1 thing I don't agree with which is that the benefits outweigh the risk enough to allow people to do it if they want to. It still agrees with me because it says that there is not enough benefits to do this routinely.

I don't like American studies because they tend to be done in whatever way necessary to get the result they want. Often including not even using American people as their test subjects.

Not having my son circumcised was one of the hardest things I have done as a parent. I was harassed by doctors and nurses. I was made to feel like a bad mother. I was told my son would be at high risk for penile cancer. This being in 2009. The push used to be a lot harder. Generally we should trust the medical professionals. I do not. Call me a crazy theist if you like, but I don't trust American doctors on this subject. These same doctors that think foreskin should retract from shortly after birth. They hand out misinformation to new parents and it really irks me.

However, I did not do what you said. I did not dismiss that link for any other reason than that I had already read it. I actually linked to that the day before.

(June 12, 2016 at 9:28 am)robvalue Wrote: Okay, fair enough.

I would still consider this a very inadequate reason, but clearly you value it much higher.

How far would you take this to make your child fit in with other fads? What if other weird unecessary surgeries became common?

I already think circumcising to help your kid fit in or prevent bullying is just silly.

But I still think it's relevant to add that I am almost 27 years old now, I went to more than one school in both Ohio and Georgia and even all the way back then kids did not get naked in lockerooms together. And those big group showers are only in some prisons and fictional movies. The idea that our sons are going to be looking at each other's penises is a bit ridiculous. In the school where I work, they don't even have girls and boys restrooms. There's a hallway with stalls on each side and sinks in the middle so each child uses the restroom in private and then can be supervised for the hand washing process.

Yes, we should raise our kids knowing that everyone is a little bit different and that is ok. We should teach them to be confident in their bodies. But also, we should stop pretending like our boys are just hanging around comparing penises. By the time they're old enough to care about doing that they'll also be old enough to know that some people have been circumcised and some have not and to have been taught that they have no reason to be concerned about that.

(June 12, 2016 at 10:13 am)LastPoet Wrote: I will have a daughter  in 7 weeks. My concern is to get enough room in the flat to accomodate for her clothes and shoes, if she takes after her mother

Given the tenor of the current discussion I'll avoid any reference to passing out cigars, though those too do get clipped.

Seriously though congratulations! Will she be your first child? I hope you can afford two women with the shopping gene.

(June 12, 2016 at 10:58 am)RozKek Wrote:

(June 11, 2016 at 9:49 pm)Homeless Nutter Wrote: Really - that's an argument? "Cleaner look"? Pray tell - how does one measure the "cleanliness" of a look of a penis? Because it sounds like an arbitrary  value judgement to me - the kind of rationalization someone would make up, if they wanted to justify a preconceived notion, with no actual facts available. Personally - I think cut d*ck looks sad, ugly, unnatural, and dirty - not only because people, who had it done seem to think, that they don't have to wash it now, but also because the head scrapes against dirty underwear all the time...

But hey - whatever helps you sleep at night, without the urge to punch your mom in the mouth for mutilating your body ...

Cut dicks look like naked cats, I can confirm.

Cut and uncut penises look like really big earthworms either with or without a turtleneck.

Which I must say is the best part about uncircumcised. You can make him hide inside his turtleneck and then pop up to say hello and then scruff the whole thing up around his neck and make him say "brrr it's rather chilly outside today".

Caution: most men do not like this. If you're going to draw a smiley face, best to do it when he's sleeping and with a marker that won't irritate the skin.


*yes I know I'm weird