Party of family values part 1 😂
-
Just because you suck them, doesn't mean you actually know anything about them.
Have you read the Denmark study on penis health? The study was about 10 years ago when they had the least amount of mutilated men and had the world's highest rate of penis health.
As a nurse, you are severely behind in your medical literature. As far back as 2009 (probably even earlier) the National Institute of Health recommending male genital mutilation for HIV, HPV and Herpes. Many of these articles even said it should be mandatory to protect women's health.
Of course, no medical journal would ever recommend female circumcision as that would be suicide with all the vaginalists and liberals. However, if you read the literature, you will find that HPV hides in the folds of the genitals of both sexes.
-
@raphjd said in Party of family values part 1
:Just because you suck them, doesn't mean you actually know anything about them.
Have you read the Denmark study on penis health? The study was about 10 years ago when they had the least amount of mutilated men and had the world's highest rate of penis health.
As a nurse, you are severely behind in your medical literature. As far back as 2009 (probably even earlier) the National Institute of Health recommending male genital mutilation for HIV, HPV and Herpes. Many of these articles even said it should be mandatory to protect women's health.
Of course, no medical journal would ever recommend female circumcision as that would be suicide with all the vaginalists and liberals. However, if you read the literature, you will find that HPV hides in the folds of the genitals of both sexes.
In my experience, even medical journals from around the world are inconsistent as-to whether circumcision causes any harm, or has any inherent benefit. Most of those that DO come down on one side or another are denounced by others (other medical scientists) as being biased.
IMHO circumcision is a primarily a religious and/or cosmetic decision that is relatively harmless. (NOTE: There are rare instances where circumcision is medically necessary).
That said, tattooing a swastika on your children's foreheads is also medically "relatively harmless" - but I wouldn't recommend it!
For the record: I was circumcised as an infant.
For the record: I have 4 sons (and 5 daughters)... and NONE of them were circumcised!
Why? Because "if it ain't broke, don't fix it!" -- there is nothing wrong with the way millions of years of evolution (or, if you must, "God") has designed and built the male human penis.- Removing most of the foreskin does not demonstrably improve on the design, so just leave it alone!
- NOT removing most of the foreskin also does not demonstrably improve on the design or function either, so if people choose to do it, so be it! The US, at least, is a free country (at least in this area!)
-
The US tried to take away parental rights by banning female circumcision.
The US did not remove parental rights to mutilate their boys.
The ban on female circumcision was ruled unconstitutional.
-
So I'm Nigerian American and my family has a roman catholic background. Every male in my family has been circumcised. The reasoning behind it has nothing to do with religion but rather it's a matter of course. It's purely for hygienic reasons.
The medical reasons are quite sound, which of course do not include circumcising infants to prevent stds.
(that is crazy) Because like I said the folds of the foreskin are a breeding ground for yeast and bacteria and are prone to infection, so men with foreskin have to more careful and have be cleaner in general. We all exist in our own bubbles. I know that living in America you think you will have access to clean water and daily bathing all the time, but if you live in a third world country this may not be the case. And if that's the way it is, you can see the benefit of male circumcision.On top of that, the forekin is attached to a highly vascularized organ, therefore most of the time if the foreskin gets infected, the safer option is to just remove it before the infection can reach the bloodstream. If this is occurs above the infant age it is an extremely extremely painful process for men. I've seen it happen to teenagers and it can be pretty traumatic. I can only imagine that the reason why this is still a debate is the belief that this is done for religious or cosmetic reasons but meeting anyone over the age of toddler having to have their foreskin removed will change anyone's mind of the subject. You better thank your parents for circumcising you.
however circumcising females has no medical value pretty much 100% of the time. 0. I repeat 0 medical value. Unlike penises, the vagina is a self cleaning organ. Vaginal secretions clean the organ and maintain ph, yeast and bacteria are just part of the balanced normal flora of the vagina. On top of that the vagina is not vascularized at all. An infection presents no real danger of reaching the bloodstream as a female will feel the problem for days even weeks before that happens and removing a girl's clitoris as is often done in fgm has no real value in preventing this. It's only to make sure that the only one who is able to feel pleasure during having sex is the man. It is 100% a practice born out of ignorance misogyny and control. I have no idea why someone would be so insane to think the 2 are even comparable.
-
So you support banning male genital mutilation in the west?
Most non-mutilated men have no problems with their penis that would require circumcision, at least in the west.
An uncut dick in the west is no dirtier than a vagina in the west.
You are making a false case, aka strawman.
HPV hides in the genital folds, regardless of sex. That is a medical basis.
-
@chanelkokoro said in Party of family values part 1
:So I'm Nigerian American and my family has a roman catholic background. Every male in my family has been circumcised. The reasoning behind it has nothing to do with religion but rather it's a matter of course. It's purely for hygienic reasons.
So, I would say that your claim that circumcision has health benefits is PROVEN false solely by the statistical analysis of populations of circumcised males vs populations of uncircumcised ones... which, in communities of like economic status, are virtually identical.
You might want to read this: article about the fallacy of male circumcision in American Culture written in the 1980s
Other than for religious or cultural "looks" reasons, there is no need or benefit to the practice - though it does surgically remove a LOT of nerve endings!)
-
@raphjd said in Party of family values part 1
:HPV hides in the genital folds, regardless of sex. That is a medical basis.
Silly boy - HPV is a virus, not a bacteria... thus, it hides INSIDE your body, not outside. If you had some of the HPV virus trapped in the folds of the skin of your penis, it would quickly die.
- You cannot catch HPV by blowing an infected male - unless he cums (or pre-cums a significant amount)
- You cannot catch HPV from a toilet seat, or a pair of underwear, previously used by an infected person
Rather than go on, let me just say that HPV is similar to HIV in that they are both sexually-transmitted diseases... but the similarity pretty much ends there.
Most importantly, your body can defeat and remove HPV from your system
For more information, turn to a trusted source (apparently, for anything but COVID-19): The CDC
-
Odd, considering that male genital mutilation was promoted as protection for females back in 2009.
-
@bi4smooth said in Party of family values part 1
:So, I would say that your claim that circumcision has health benefits is PROVEN false solely by the statistical analysis of populations of circumcised males vs populations of uncircumcised ones... which, in communities of like economic status, are virtually identical.
You might want to read this: article about the fallacy of male circumcision in American Culture written in the 1980s
Other than for religious or cultural "looks" reasons, there is no need or benefit to the practice - though it does surgically remove a LOT of nerve endings!)
The same CDC you are quoting as a great source of information endorsed the practice of male circumcision in December of 2014 after releasing a 61 page literature review saying the health benefits vastly outweigh the risks and they criticized much of the arguments in the opposite direction because they were made off faulty experiments. That is far more updated than anything that was said in the 80s given the studies and technology that has come out since then.
The CDC recommends male circumcision due to the following reasons:
Medical Conditions That Male Circumcision Protects Against Over the Lifetime:
Urinary tract infection
Penile inflammation, for example, balanitis, balanoposthitis, lichen sclerosus
Candidiasis
Phimosis and paraphimosis
Inferior hygiene
Sexually transmitted infections including high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV), genital herpes simplex virus (HSV), trichomoniasis, mycoplasma, syphilis, chancroid, and HIV (now I mentioned that this is a reason that I have never seen here in the west, but when you think of places like Africa, the continent most ravaged by AIDS, it might be relevant.)
Physical injuries to the foreskin, including coital injuries
Cancers of the penis, prostate, and cervix
peer reviewed article from 2017 reinforcing cdc Mc reccomendations
If there were no medical value to it there'd be no reason why we'd be doing it in our hospitals. There is no credible evidence that removing the foreskin decreases penile sensitivity and function. However, I think that men believe that is the case and have been struggling to argue that it has no medical value ever since.
At this point, penile foreskin is like a vestigial structure similar to that of the appendix. Perhaps somewhere in our evolutionary ancestry it was an important organ but today It has no real value and serves no real purpose other than being the source of potential infection. The reason why we don't go through the trouble of removing everyone's appendix is because it lies deep within our bodies and is surrounded by the organs of our abdominal cavity. It's too much of a hassle and the risk of surgical trauma is higher than what the appendix poses. However, the appendix is such a useless thing that if for any reason we had to surgically go into that area, like installing a ileostomy, repairing some kind of intestinal trauma, or removing the ovaries, even if the appendix was not infected we would still remove it. Because it's a time bomb.
But unlike the appendix, the foreskin exists on the outside of the body, making it much easier and much more common to remove. I don't know why y'all are struggling to keep it anyways. If all you cared about was vanity, your pig in a blanket dicks are not visually appealing and are prone to strange smells. Not that uncircumcision would ever stop me from getting with a guy I liked, but I'm just keeping it real.
However, getting back to the original argument, we women also pay taxes. And we don't get to decide whether that money pays for your circumcisions (something half of you guys deem unnecessary) and your vasectomies which are wholly unnecessary because it's not that hard to not cum inside a woman. We pay for your birth control all the time without any complaints, I don't see why men think they can decide not to pay for our birth control, and then claim they care about abortion. Best way to avoid abortion is never getting pregnant in the first place. You conservatives should be BEGGING to pay for our birth control, if y'all really cared about abortion the way you say you do.
-
Any excuse to mutilate males, but justify not doing the same to females.
Feminist "gender equality" is strong in this thread.
I say we should chop shit off of women for medical reasons.
-
@chanelkokoro said in Party of family values part 1
:So if circumcision is such a great and wonderful thing, perhaps you can explain why it is mostly prevalent in Northern Africa and the Middle East - 2 areas of the world most highly regarded as leaders in human disease prevention, hygiene, and general excellence in all things intellectual and science-based! (Proof: look at all the lunar and martian landings these countries account for! Not to mention the UNCOUNTABLE numbers of Nobel and other prizes for science and medicine they have achieved!) (end sarcasm)...
Indeed, it's such a great and wonderful thing, the prevalence of it in America (US) has dropped from about 80% in the 1950s to roughly 50/50 in the 2000's... those dumb American parents!
Honestly, and I know I'm repeating myself here, if there was any REAL evidence of any SIGNIFICANT benefit to circumcising male children (or female - gotta include @raphjd here), don't you think there would be world-wide campaigns to get it done?
The FACTS are that STD rates, urethra infections, and rates of most other genital-based diseases and problems in the US/Canada, Australia, Japan, S. Korea, Russia (as much as is reported), and Europe are statistically so even - despite the WIDELY disparate rates of circumcision (e.g.: virtually never done in Asian countries!) - that the BEST you can say is that while circumcision does not appear to help, it also appears to do no harm either!
Indeed, the fact that it cannot really be shown to be either helpful or harmful is precisely why it remains "optional" around the world.
Personally, I would infer from the rate data that mass-circumcision is indeed cultural (based on religious and ancient misconceptions)... being that N Africa and the Middle East are far more religiously-oriented and controlled than the rest of the world.
That said, I'll admit that I have only observation to backup that assertion...
Check out the circumcision rates around the world here. (While I don't often cite Wikipedia as a "trusted source", this article has more than 60 references to backup its data).
-
Circumcision for boys became a thing in the US as an anti-masturbation technique, at about the same time as all the other wacky medical stuff came out. Graham Crackers also cured masturbation.
I mentioned the penis health study and Demark having the highest rate of intact males and the highest rate of penis health.
All the pro-mutilation "science" comes from Africa. When it gets reported in the west, they leave out the barbaric way it's traditionally done, while reporting on how safe it is in a clinical setting. Of course, it's much safer in a clinic than in the bush using a broken bottle or rusty piece of scrap metal.
Oprah needs male genital mutilation so she can rub the ground-up foreskins on her ugly mug to look younger. Korean males are losing their foreskins so western bitches can rub them on their faces at $500 a pop.
-
@bi4smooth said in Party of family values part 1
:@chanelkokoro said in Party of family values part 1
:So if circumcision is such a great and wonderful thing, perhaps you can explain why it is mostly prevalent in Northern Africa and the Middle East - 2 areas of the world most highly regarded as leaders in human disease prevention, hygiene, and general excellence in all things intellectual and science-based! (Proof: look at all the lunar and martian landings these countries account for! Not to mention the UNCOUNTABLE numbers of Nobel and other prizes for science and medicine they have achieved!) (end sarcasm)...
Indeed, it's such a great and wonderful thing, the prevalence of it in America (US) has dropped from about 80% in the 1950s to roughly 50/50 in the 2000's... those dumb American parents!
when non Africans argue with an African about Africa...
This is a strawman argument. The rate of circumcisions in the west, has nothing to do with its efficacy, and everything with the media and the perception of circumcision in those places over the years. This is like saying that because 40% of Americans still refuse to get vaccinated because people without medical degrees decided to get on fox news and make it a national debate, the vaccines must not be effective.
Secondly, it's a fallacy to compare Africa to the West in the first place. Africa is a continent of underdeveloped nations while much of the west is industrialized. STDs in Africa occur due to a number of factors, that doesn't mean that circumcision doesn't help lower the number of incidents, as the studies have indicated, over and over again.
Let me explain what you are doing using my own arbitrary made up numbers:
Let's say canada has a 1000/1 million std rate and they don't circumcise much.
then Liberia has a rate of like 10000/1 million std rate and they circumcise 80%
Studies compare the parts of Liberia that circumcise and the parts that don't and realize that the parts that circumcise have 62% less incidents of stds than those who didn't (which is actually what the cdc studies are indicating.)
just because 10,000/1million is higher than 1000/1million does not mean circumcision did not prevent stds. but this is what you are arguing.
Now, saying that we shouldn't circumcise our children because we are living in a first world country with enough wealth and resources to treat or prevent penile health incidents is a MUCH better and sound argument, than looking at these 2 different numbers with no context and saying that circumcision has no health benefits. Because that's false.
Lastly, the united states has the highest rate of stds in the industrialized/developed world. So bragging about how our circumcision rates have lowered when among first and second world countries we're number 1 in STD rates is a weird flex to say the least.
Honestly, and I know I'm repeating myself here, if there was any REAL evidence of any SIGNIFICANT benefit to circumcising male children (or female - gotta include @raphjd here), don't you think there would be world-wide campaigns to get it done?
we can't even get people to do something as simple as wearing masks in the middle of a global pandemic. and we can't get our red states to teach sex ed in schools, but sure, we'll be able to convince people to take off the loose skin off their baby's dick.
the most the US has done is make circumcision free under government health programs.
The FACTS are that STD rates, urethra infections, and rates of most other genital-based diseases and problems in the US/Canada, Australia, Japan, S. Korea, Russia (as much as is reported), and Europe are statistically so even - despite the WIDELY disparate rates of circumcision (e.g.: virtually never done in Asian countries!) - that the BEST you can say is that while circumcision does not appear to help, it also appears to do no harm either!
this is a real simple and flawed logic. that's not how this works. for instance you know why japan's std rate is low? because they ain't fucking!
sidenote: the wikipedia article you liked shows that south koreans are doing it at a rate of 75% and climbing.
Indeed, the fact that it cannot really be shown to be either helpful or harmful is precisely why it remains "optional" around the world.
Look, all I did was quote the cdc, same as you did, which is filled to the brim with health and medical experts from all over the world who have said they have tested and studied this issue for literally decades and have found that male circumcision has so many health benefits that they recommend people circumcise their children. They gave you 61 pages worth of research and studies they've conducted. they were a reliable source for you before, when you wanted to show @raphjd his irrationality, so what changed? You are cherry picking what you want to believe based on your own politics/beliefs and ignoring the science.
If the CDC, National Institute of Health, and World Health Organization which all say that male circumcision has numerous health benefits are out here and you're still holding onto stats with no context and debates from the 80s done by people with no medical degrees to defend your position, then you're never going to be convinced of anything else. There is no informed medical consensus you will ever accept. Just like the people who say manmade climate change is a hoax despite the fact that 98% of the world's scientists are in agreement that it's not, the only reason why this is still a debate are because of the people who want to keep it debate.
As for people doing it for religious reasons, who cares? A broken clock is right twice a day. I'm completely secular, but that doesn't mean I'm going to find fault in them doing something medically beneficial for their child because they've deluded themselves into thinking it's for god.
-
This post is deleted! -
@raphjd said in Party of family values part 1
:Circumcision for boys became a thing in the US as an anti-masturbation technique, at about the same time as all the other wacky medical stuff came out. Graham Crackers also cured masturbation.
Well we can agree that Graham crackers are better than sex, amirite?
All the pro-mutilation "science" comes from Africa. When it gets reported in the west, they leave out the barbaric way it's traditionally done, while reporting on how safe it is in a clinical setting. Of course, it's much safer in a clinic than in the bush using a broken bottle or rusty piece of scrap metal.
As an african I have never seen it done this way but I assume that's the way used to be or could've been. What you need to worry about is some of these jewish rabbis that be sucking on the baby's peen afterwards. What is that about??
Am I weird? Has anyone else ever seen that?
-
@chanelkokoro Why don't we unmask this issue and talk about the real issue. The fact that we even have circumcision (male or female) is a religious one. When it was 'practiced' in ancient times arguments of HPV and other health related arguments was not even considered. The fact is that we now know that circumcision is completely useless (if not harmful) practice that is only propagated via religious customs.
I'm sorry for your loss (of foreskin) but the fact of the matter is that they did something to you (not even asked you) so that God can recognize their true followers. Stop trying to explain away the mussing of some illiterate shepherds! -
I've said from the beginning that, for every study you find in support of circumcision, you can find another against it... in both cases, the logic is usually a stretch.
I stand by my argument:
- circumcision does little-to-no harm
- circumcision has few, if any, real benefits
- arguments both for and against are "weak"...
I consider it equivalent to getting a tattoo... very few people have adverse reactions to getting a tattoo, it is seldom of any real benefit to the "wearer", but the decision to get one is essentially permanent.
The biggest difference is that most circumcisions are done to babies - the child has no say... would we allow parents to cover their child in tattoos? (Actually, it would be perfectly legal! Same as circumcision!)
Finally, you completely missed the point about the circumcision-rates:
- higher rates in N Africa and the Middle East are due almost entirely to religious reasons, not economic ones. But these countries are NOT leaders in medical fields, so IF there was a solid medical basis for circumcising infant males, this isn't the part of the world we would expect to see "movement" in the circumcision rates
- lower rates (that is, rates getting lower) in N America and Europe - where medical science is a "strong suit" would be expected to be on the rise -- IF there was a solid medical basis...
-
In the developed world, we only allow baby boys to be mutilated and in some places allow children to get their ears pierced.
We don't allow lip plating, scarring, tattooing, neck stretching, boot binding, and countless other things.
-
Earlier in this thread, we were informed that vaginas are perfect and naturally clean, the polar opposite of uncut penises.
Oddly enough, while shopping Amazon, I have found a lot of products for manky vaginas.
Clearly, they are nothing but snake oil, just like gynecology.
-
@vmalar said in Party of family values part 1
:@chanelkokoro Why don't we unmask this issue and talk about the real issue. The fact that we even have circumcision (male or female) is a religious one. When it was 'practiced' in ancient times arguments of HPV and other health related arguments was not even considered.
I'm agnostic. I left religion with my hair on fire. That is not the point and this is not a valid argument. There are plenty of things that we used to do that had no medical merit or had a different purpose that we later discovered was actually beneficial. For example: viagra was first made to treat heart conditions. It just so happens that we discovered that it could also help with erectile dysfunction.
The fact is that we now know that circumcision is completely useless (if not harmful) practice that is only propagated via religious customs.
I'm sorry for your loss (of foreskin) but the fact of the matter is that they did something to you (not even asked you) so that God can recognize their true followers. Stop trying to explain away the mussing of some illiterate shepherds!
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login