TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- are you circumcised?
Pages (18): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 »

quote:

Originally posted by Nou Ehh, I like having my penor uncut, 100% natural! If we honestly didnt need it, then we wouldnt have evolved to have them, now would we? Yea! Im about to start a Non-Circumcised Alliance!

I'm in.. make the siggy

quote:

Originally posted by Nou Haha i dont really want to replace the picture of two hot chicks with a picture of a uncut shlong..... hrmmmm

"Alizee & Luisana like it uncut"

quote:

Originally posted by Nou There... now just gota make a universal slogan.... hrmmmm

check mine out ROFL

yeah, I don't think I could add that to mine...

quote:

Originally posted by Nou

is that pirate symbolism for your uncut one-eyed monster?

I personally think its no big benifites with haveing either uncut or cut.... majority of the world is uncut, united states is the largest country to practice circumsisions. I truely dont believe people who are uncut have a higher health risk of getting serious problems, because if that was the case u would have majority of europea practicing circumsisions as well. But i remember reading something about circumsisions in the USA and they said that there is no real advantage of having a cut penis.. and they have said that most new borns in the USA are now not getting circumsized as much as they used to. So i think cut or uncut i dont think there is a big advantage of having either.

uncut here

cut like cocain.

It's cool to be cut.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono It's cool to be cut.

um, oww?

well, that makes me feel bad, for the uncut guys

quote:

Originally posted by Emil Where in the blue hell in my original post am I wrong? Maybe you guys have selective reading? Let me try again: IF YOU ARE NOT CIRCUMCISED YOU ARE MORE likely to DEVELOP PHIMOSIS.

Read your post again. You actually said most, and not more. You also said that the only solution is to get cut, which is again, dead wrong. Everyone else who thinks it's a good idea to get cut - listen to Arbiter. Arbiter is usually right.

FYI, cut people are a minority in the cast majority of the western world, the US is the only western country with high rates of circumcision. Personally, I just don't see why you'd want to be cut.

First of all, the whole argument about phimosis is false. When I was a kid, doctors told me that I had it and that I just have to keep stretching the skin for a few months. So a little bit of jacking off, and the problem was solved.

Now, regarding the infection chance, it seems like most of you people here don't realize that every surgical procedure carries with itself a chance of infection, as well as a chance of inducing permanent damage. So overall, the chances of infection aren't reduced, because while you are reducing a chance of urinary infection, you are increasing a chance of infection caused by surgery itself. I guess you could say that every kid should have it's small intestine removed at birth as well, because it may lead to infections later on in life.

Finally, I'd say that the sensitivity of the head is reduced because of the lack of protective casing around it, as well as the procedure would make jerking off rather difficult.

Overall, I must say Arbiter did a great job with links explaining why circumcision is not a beneficial procedure.

sweet jesus. 9 pages of penis is enough.

stop posting and die thread.



we need a vagina thread er something.

Ok.

I like cheezy vaginas.Absolutely tastes great with some whipped cream.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Now, regarding the infection chance, it seems like most of you people here don't realize that every surgical procedure carries with itself a chance of infection, as well as a chance of inducing permanent damage. So overall, the chances of infection aren't reduced, because while you are reducing a chance of urinary infection, you are increasing a chance of infection caused by surgery itself. I guess you could say that every kid should have it's small intestine removed at birth as well, because it may lead to infections later on in life.

Well, since everyone is ignoring what I said before, I'll post again. First, the chance of complication due to a circumcision is 1 out of every 476 proceedures. Second, for every one circumcision complication, 6 urinary tract infections are avoided because of the proceedure.

So, yes there are complications. But, for every one complication 6 urinary tract infections will not occur on boys how have been circucised. Sounds like a pretty good trade off to me.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...00111074855.htm

I am still waiting for someone to show me why it is beneficial not to be circumcised.

In the end it's called preventitive medicine. There are a number of conditions a circumcised individual will never have to deal with, all of which I listed before. Like any preventitive medicine proceedure there are risks, but with circumcision they are ridiculously small. Every year thousands get colonsocopies to prevent colon cancer, yet there are post-operative risks involved. Should all preventitive medicine with the slightest risk be banned? Circumcision has a low rate of complication for a huge amount of benefits.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I am still waiting for someone to show me why it is beneficial not to be circumcised.

To all of us who aren't cut, I'm glad of it, simply cos I think everybody deserves the choice, and if I was asked, I wouldn't want to be done, I'm happy how it is, as long as you're hygenic, you should be fine, and if you're not, then so be it, that's something that you'd have to deal with. It's like body piercing when u see the celebrity parents having their kids ears pierced at about 2 years old, the kid has no idea whats going on and should be due their choices in the matter. I understand some are done to religion, and so be it, I respect that, but people should also respect the fact that some of us don't want to be cut & take the risk of any infection because of it

Yes I am. And oh how girls love it when you're circumsized Mwahahaha!

quote:

Originally posted by GelatinPufF Yes I am. And oh how girls love it when you're circumsized Mwahahaha!

pic or STFU

quote:

Originally posted by Ian^ To all of us who aren't cut, I'm glad of it, simply cos I think everybody deserves the choice, and if I was asked, I wouldn't want to be done, I'm happy how it is, as long as you're hygenic, you should be fine, and if you're not, then so be it, that's something that you'd have to deal with. It's like body piercing when u see the celebrity parents having their kids ears pierced at about 2 years old, the kid has no idea whats going on and should be due their choices in the matter. I understand some are done to religion, and so be it, I respect that, but people should also respect the fact that some of us don't want to be cut & take the risk of any infection because of it

Fair enough. I have nothing against the "uncircumcised" (not that that's a bad word or something), I was just trying to say that to me, any risks of being circumcised greaty outweigh the risks of not being circumcised.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono So, yes there are complications. But, for every one complication 6 urinary tract infections will not occur on boys how have been circucised. Sounds like a pretty good trade off to me.

You are implying that a surgical complication and a urinary tract infection are inherently problems of the same magnitude. Urinary tract infections usually aren't any more of a problem than is a common cold. I'd rather risk that than have a doctor accidentally cut a bit too deep.

quote:

I am still waiting for someone to show me why it is beneficial not to be circumcised.

Because the head of a dick is a rather sensitive membrane for which it is good to be covered in protective casing.

quote:

In the end it's called preventitive medicine. There are a number of conditions a circumcised individual will never have to deal with, all of which I listed before. Like any preventitive medicine proceedure there are risks, but with circumcision they are ridiculously small. Every year thousands get colonsocopies to prevent colon cancer, yet there are post-operative risks involved. Should all preventitive medicine with the slightest risk be banned? Circumcision has a low rate of complication for a huge amount of benefits.

Since children upon whom this procedure is enacted are not consenting individuals, this sort of preventive medicine should be discouraged from being carried through. There is a low rate of complications, but there most certainly isn't a huge amount of benefits either.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Well, since everyone is ignoring what I said before, I'll post again. First, the chance of complication due to a circumcision is 1 out of every 476 proceedures. Second, for every one circumcision complication, 6 urinary tract infections are avoided because of the proceedure. So, yes there are complications. But, for every one complication 6 urinary tract infections will not occur on boys how have been circucised. Sounds like a pretty good trade off to me. http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...00111074855.htm I am still waiting for someone to show me why it is beneficial not to be circumcised. In the end it's called preventitive medicine. There are a number of conditions a circumcised individual will never have to deal with, all of which I listed before. Like any preventitive medicine proceedure there are risks, but with circumcision they are ridiculously small. Every year thousands get colonsocopies to prevent colon cancer, yet there are post-operative risks involved. Should all preventitive medicine with the slightest risk be banned? Circumcision has a low rate of complication for a huge amount of benefits.

Since you evidentally didn't read the article Arbiter posted, I'll quote it for you:

In the last fifty years, circumcision advocates in the medical profession have promoted various claims. The most widely used current medical claim for circumcision is that it decreases the incidence of urinary tract infection (UTI) in the first year of life. However, the UTI studies this position is based on have been criticized by other physicians, most notably by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). They concluded that the test designs and methods of these studies may have �flaws.� A similar study found no confirmed cases of UTI in intact male infants without urinary birth defects. Furthermore, the UTI defense of circumcision is weak, not just because the methods are flawed, but because the logic and reasoning leading to the conclusion are flawed.
The UTI studies do not justify routine infant circumcision for the following reasons:

Even according to the questionable studies, the overwhelming majority (96-99 percent) of intact male infants do not get UTIs in the first year. It is not reasonable to subject them to circumcision and the associated pain without demonstrable benefit.
The studies do not consider the potential harm caused by circumcision. The rate of surgical complications is reported to be from 0.2 to 38 percent. (The higher rate included complications reported during the infants� first year.) There are at least twenty different complications including hemorrhage, infection, surgical injury, and in rare cases, death. Other harm includes loss of the foreskin and behavioral consequences.
Circumcision involves cutting off normal, healthy, functioning tissue to prevent potential UTI problems in the future. There is no disease or infection present at the time of surgery. If we were to apply this principle in trying to prevent other potential problems, then we would be pulling healthy teeth to prevent cavities. Clearly, this principle is irrational.
UTI is treatable with antibiotics. If good medical practice requires the least intrusive form of effective treatment, then circumcision is not justified. Circumcision is a radical surgical treatment.
Females have a higher UTI rate than males, yet no doctor advocates genital surgery to reduce female UTI.
Most of these arguments would be applicable to any claimed medical benefit. Circumcision advocates can only make the dubious claim that an unlikely or rare condition will be less likely to occur in the circumcised male. This benefit is sufficient justification for many people partly because circumcision is a surgical procedure that is done on someone else. It is pertinent to ask: Would you voluntarily submit to an unanesthetized surgical procedure on your healthy genitals for this �benefit�? The answer is also evident from the fact that intact male adults are not generally seeking to have themselves circumcised. Upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that the flawed reasoning of supposedly reputable studies has contributed to the confusion on the circumcision issue.
Indeed, the medical community itself has acknowledged that it has not maintained very high standards in its published work. Researchers and authors Charles and Daphne Maurer cite an editorial published in the Journal of the American Medical Association:

In a study of 149 articles selected at random from ten widely read and highly regarded medical periodicals . . . less than 28% have sufficient statistical support for drawn conclusions.
Maurer and Maurer explain why so much �nonsense� is published: (1) Experimental design and statistical analysis are not typically taught in medical school; and (2) medical schools discourage questioning of authorities.
Our science is affected by our cultural values. Circumcision reflects a cultural value, and a principal method for preserving cultural values is to disguise them as truths that are based on scientific research. This �research� can then be used to support medical practices. This explains the claimed medical �benefits� of circumcision.

Blind acceptance of science and belief in �objective� reality is imprudent. There is no such thing as objective observation, because observations are made by people who have inherent theories and expectations about how things should be. Studies defending circumcision make this clear by ignoring vital information (such as the functions of the foreskin) that conflicts with observations, results, and conclusions.

Because it is unnecessary surgery, the burden of proof in the circumcision debate rests with those who advocate it. They must show that it is both safe and effective. Neither has been demonstrated.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 You are implying that a surgical complication and a urinary tract infection are inherently problems of the same magnitude. Urinary tract infections usually aren't any more of a problem than is a common cold. I'd rather risk that than have a doctor accidentally cut a bit too deep.

The article says that of those complications, by far the most common was intraoperatal bleeding. That occurs in any proceedure, it just means you bleed. Yeah, if you get part of your penis cut off that happens, but I don't consider that a "high magnitude" risk. If you don't believe my cost/risk analysis, here is one from a Canadian research team, and one from the University of Michigan.

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/to/

quote:

Conclusions: In Ontario, 23,000 infant boys are circumcised annually. Uncertainty about the medical indications and 3-fold risk of hospitalization from UTI supports the notion that neonatal circumcision protects infant boys from UTI, the relative risk is low compared to the relative risks of UTI reported by others.

http://www.lib.umich.edu/taubman/re...choenEdgarJ.pdf

quote:

Conclusions. Newborn circumcision results in a 9.1- fold decrease in incidence of UTI during the first year of life as well as markedly lower UTI-related medical costs and rate of hospital admissions. Newborn circumcision during the first year of life is, thus, a valuable preventive health measure, particularly in the first 3 months of life, when uncircumcised males are most likely to be hospitalized with severe UTI.

quote:

Because the head of a dick is a rather sensitive membrane for which it is good to be covered in protective casing.

I agree, but unless you're walking around naked, I don't see this as much of an issue.

quote:

Since children upon whom this procedure is enacted are not consenting individuals, this sort of preventive medicine should be discouraged from being carried through. There is a low rate of complications, but there most certainly isn't a huge amount of benefits either.

Ahh...so since children don't give consent, we shouldn't perform preventitive medicine on them? I think that would open up a very big debate, since children are unable to give consent. I guess we're just going to have to let a lot of children deal with their medical issues until they're 18. There go childhood immunizations, since the risk of acutally aquiring the illness is low in developed countries in comparision to the risk of complications from the immunizations.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Ahh...so since children don't give consent, we shouldn't perform preventitive medicine on them? I think that would open up a very big debate, since children are unable to give consent. I guess we're just going to have to let a lot of children deal with their medical issues until they're 18. There go childhood immunizations, since the risk of acutally aquiring the illness is low in developed countries in comparision to the risk of complications from the immunizations.

The thing is that it's not some banal common preventive medicine. It's cutting part of your dick, ffs.

quote:

Originally posted by paranoik0 The thing is that it's not some banal common preventive medicine. It's cutting part of your dick, ffs.

Again, no one seems to be ready ANY of the links I have posted giving the medical FACTS of being circumcised. I'm not going to repeat myself yet again.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.