Current Events > There's a circumcision protest happening right now

(+) Yeah! (+)

Zwijn posted...

*looks down*
*sees belly*

That was pretty funny

thronedfire2 posted...

baptism is stupid too

children shouldn't be indoctrinated into cults

I am no fan of religion, but I can at least respect the sects of Christianity that don't baptize people until they are teenagers and can make a (semi) informed choice about it

Anyone who doesn't think foreskin serves a function clearly doesn't have one. Sad.

Zelduh posted...

Anyone who doesn't think foreskin serves a function clearly doesn't have one. Sad.

Reliable studies show there's no significant or consistent difference in function or sensitivity between circumcised and uncircumcised people.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Reliable studies show there's no significant or consistent difference in function or sensitivity between circumcised and uncircumcised people.

I'm really sorry you were mutilated at birth without consent. You deserved better.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Reliable studies show there's no significant or consistent difference in function or sensitivity between circumcised and uncircumcised people.

Then theres no reason to circumcise people then. None at all.

Bass_X0 posted...

Then theres no reason to circumcise people then. None at all.

But what about the world wide penis cancer epidemic

I wonder if he's going to bring up vaccinations again.

Because dick cheese is apparently a communicable disease.

Zelduh posted...

I'm really sorry you were mutilated at birth without consent. You deserved better.

I'm glad I was circumcised.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

That's why it's important to note that there are also upsides. There are no real downsides, and there are real upsides.

It's honestly not that complex.

Bass_X0 posted...

Then theres no reason to circumcise people then. None at all.

Apart from all the health benefits that aren't directly related to function or sensitivity, you mean?

Because there are other health benefits that aren't directly related to function or sensitivity. And they exist.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Reliable studies show there's no significant or consistent difference in function or sensitivity between circumcised and uncircumcised people.

Well that's pretty easy to debunk just by rolling your foreskin back and leaving it like that in your pants.

Any uncut guy that has tried that will tell you, the only way a person could function while dealing with that all day every day is if the dick head just loses sensation to some degree.

Giblet_Enjoyer posted...

Well that's pretty easy to debunk just by rolling your foreskin back and leaving it like that in your pants.

... that's not accurate at all, dude. It's not like there's no skin left at all when circumcised.

Giblet_Enjoyer posted...

Well that's pretty easy to debunk just by rolling your foreskin back and leaving it like that in your pants.

Any uncut guy that has tried that will tell you, the only way a person could function while dealing with that all day every day is if the dick head just loses sensation to some degree.

Why aren't STD and cancer rates through the roof in countries where circumcision is low? There should a clearly demonstrable discrepancy if circumcision is loaded with indisputable health benefits that regular bathing can't give you.

"All these health benefits" should be more than "If you're someone who doesn't have access to regular bathing, you won't have to worry about smegma

It's fun when people are vigorously pro-science until it comes to things they disagree with. Then scientists are wrong and preventative medical procedures are evil.

Im slightly bitter about having a feature on a major body part taken away without any input on my part, but I cant say its something I think about very often at all.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

It's fun when people are vigorously pro-science until it comes to things they disagree with. Then scientists are wrong and preventative medical procedures are evil.

Just looked up the Dutch scientific literature. Doctors state the risks greatly outweigh any possible benefit, benefits theyre not even sure exist. They also state that the only reason they dont push for outright making it illegal is because they dont want Jews and Muslims to do it themselves.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

It's fun when people are vigorously pro-science until it comes to things they disagree with. Then scientists are wrong and preventative medical procedures are evil.

Studies on the supposed benefits of circumcision are about as reliable as all those studies that showed the health benefits of smoking. And the motivation behind them is about the same.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

It's fun when people are vigorously pro-science until it comes to things they disagree with. Then scientists are wrong and preventative medical procedures are evil.

Then why the actual fuck isn't there widespread dick-related issues in countries with low rates of circumcision? Shouldn't that be scientifically supported if circumcision has demonstrable health benefits?

You aren't really good at thinking, or speaking, or really anything at all.

requoting myself b/c it's relevant

The CDC released a pro-circumcision policy in 2014. They requested a review by Robert Van Howe.
His main criticisms were:
lack of scientific and scholarly rigor
lack of attention to detail
disregard for the medical evidence
lack of a thorough discussion of the foreskin
out of step with the rest of the world
took over seven years
counterfactual, incomplete, and biased
His more specific criticisms were:
cites reviews and opinions, not data
outdated citations
no look at cons
ignores 96% of PubMed medical literature
assumes 3 African HIV trials are unbiased
if graduate student submitted, a failing grade
incorrect, redundant citations
misspellings
works from conclusions to facts
no foreskin anatomy or function
unrevised over seven years of writing
deliberate misinformation
focuses on HIV studies from Africa, not the US
non-medical focus
Most interesting is the fact that in 2007, the CDC invited nearly all of the world's top pro-circumcision experts (50+ people) to attend a consultation. Only one token invitee had published papers against circumcision. The same thing happened that year when the WHO recommended circumcision for HIV.
The rest of the review goes into detail about the policy's many flaws but it's clear that the CDC has an agenda in pushing circumcision.
https://www.academia.edu/10553782/A_CDC-requested_Evidence-based_Critique_of_the_Centers_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention_2014
_Draft_on_Male_Circumcision_How_Ideology_and_Selective_Science_Lead_to_Superficial_Culturally-biased_Recommendations_by_the_CDC

Gobstoppers12 posted...

It's fun when people are vigorously pro-science until it comes to things they disagree with. Then scientists are wrong and preventative medical procedures are evil.

Do you still think dick cheese is a communicable illness?

Gobstoppers12 posted...

It's fun when people are vigorously pro-science until it comes to things they disagree with. Then scientists are wrong and preventative medical procedures are evil.

Well then, Mr Science, address the issues in this post #373.

Or hush.

DrizztLink posted...

Do you still think dick cheese is a communicable illness?

Never did, don't strawman

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Never did, don't strawman

So you do understand the difference between vaccines and circumcision.

Good, you can stop using the argument.

DrizztLink posted...

So you do understand the difference between vaccines and circumcision.

Good, you can stop using the argument.

I just said don't strawman, but here you are doing it again.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

... that's not accurate at all, dude. It's not like there's no skin left at all when circumcised.

It uncovers the head of your peepee. That part is extremely sensitive naturally

hockeybabe89 posted...

Why aren't STD and cancer rates through the roof in countries where circumcision is low? There should a clearly demonstrable discrepancy if circumcision is loaded with indisputable health benefits that regular bathing can't give you.

"All these health benefits" should be more than "If you're someone who doesn't have access to regular bathing, you won't have to worry about smegma

I have no idea why you quoted me with this response

Giblet_Enjoyer posted...

That part is extremely sensitive naturally

It's extremely sensitive for me, too, but there's other skin and such that gets 'in the way' when flaccid so it doesn't cause any discomfort or difficulty. Which is why I think you're mistaken about what actually happens to people when they're circumcised.

Giblet_Enjoyer posted...

I have no idea why you quoted me with this response

uh idk? sorry

Gobstoppers12 posted...

It's extremely sensitive for me, too, but there's other skin and such that gets 'in the way' when flaccid so it doesn't cause any discomfort or difficulty. Which is why I think you're mistaken about what actually happens to people when they're circumcised.

A quick googling tells me circumcision typically removes the skin starting from just behind the head of the penis, so yeah, rolling it back would simulate that. You either had a partial circumcision or your dangus just hangs differently. Your pener head will brush your clothing (in the case of loose fitting undies/no undies) if circumcised "properly".

Gobstoppers12 posted...

It's fun when people are vigorously pro-science until it comes to things they disagree with. Then scientists are wrong and preventative medical procedures are evil.

circumcision isn't to prevent anything but to appease the religions and get foreskins to use for certain business, most countries don't really do circumcisions and there's no increase in illness because of that, all the things that circumcisions are supposed to prevent can be prevented by using condoms and washing your penis with soap, but of course religions and the US culture don't want men to touch their penis to wash it or being able to masturbate, people with foreskins don't need lube to masturbate

Gobstoppers12 posted... It's extremely sensitive for me, too, but there's other skin and such that gets 'in the way' when flaccid so it doesn't cause any discomfort or difficulty. Which is why I think you're mistaken about what actually happens to people when they're circumcised.

it would be way more sensitive if your weren't circumcised

Giblet_Enjoyer posted...

so yeah, rolling it back would simulate that

Evidently not very well.

majin_nemesis posted...

it would be way more sensitive if your weren't circumcised

Source?

majin_nemesis posted...

circumcision isn't to prevent anything but to appease the religions and get foreskins to use for certain business, most countries don't really do circumcisions and there's no increase in illness because of that, all the things that circumcisions are supposed to prevent can be prevented by using condoms and washing your penis with soap, but of course religions and the US culture don't want men to touch their penis to wash it or being able to masturbate, people with foreskins don't need lube to masturbate

Not to pass misinformation but if you want to use soap. Make sure it is unscented. Washing with warm water alone is fine too. If you wash with scented, it can cause problems.

I'm going to need one because of a medical reason but I wish I knew that scented soap would cause issues. I've always used unscented but complications arose when I didn't.

Gob not so covertly avoiding quoting parts of posts he can't address.

Deutschenlied posted...

Gob not so covertly avoiding quoting parts of posts he can't address.

The actual answer to this little homebrew experiment of his, is "if you're not used to the way your penis feels without foreskin, you're not sitting in ways that alleviate the friction."

It's not really a meaningful point, because it's just a subjective anecdote. "I rolled my foreskin back and the head of my penis was sensitive, checkmate."

It's sensitive for me, too, but for some reason or another it's not a problem day to day.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Evidently not very well.

Source?

here
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE91D1CP/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23374102/

but you don't really need a source the head of the penis just grinding into clothes and stuff all the time is going to lose sensation compared to one that doesn't do that also you are forgetting that the foreskin itself is quite sensitive, so you are going to lose that sensitivity if you don't have one

Gobstoppers12 posted...

The actual answer to this little homebrew experiment of his, is "if you're not used to the way your penis feels without foreskin, you're not sitting in ways that alleviate the friction."

It's not really a meaningful point, because it's just a subjective anecdote. "I rolled my foreskin back and the head of my penis was sensitive, checkmate."

It's sensitive for me, too, but for some reason or another it's not a problem day to day.

Cool. Now address why penis cancer and STDs aren't rampant in countries with low circumcision rates. Since it's so scientific and obvious the numerous health benefits only a circumcision could provide. There should be direct links one can make

Deutschenlied posted...

Now address why penis cancer and STDs aren't rampant in countries with low circumcision rates

It's a somewhat rare cancer, but research has shown that circumcision reduces the rates. It's not "rampant" anywhere.

this board is in an unredeemable state

Leave the fucking dick skin alone for fuck sake

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

It's literally just copium. He was circumcised as an infant and must mentally justify it somehow.

The superbowl is on and yall are still talking about dick hoods >_>

This is really a nothing burger issue imo

NeonTentacles posted...

The superbowl is on and yall are still talking about dick hoods >_>

And you're here posting that tired "You're a creep if you care about circumcision" crap

ai123 posted...

Well then, Mr Science, address the issues in this post #373.

Or hush.

That's never getting addressed because it's inconvenient