US circumcision rates drop to record low of 33%

[deleted15807]

8 threads going on right now on circumcision and zero on climate change. tisk.

 

[BIGBULL29]

8 threads going on right now on circumcision and zero on climate change. tisk.

Because circumcised men cannot orgasm properly without one. They are forever scarred, and now the future of the world hangs in the balance. If RIC is not ended soon, it is over.

Sargon, I kindly ask you to join the battle today. It's our only hope. And I will send you an anti-RIC t-shirt. I promise.:biggrin1:

 

[Sapien]

No, you not only insulted me but chose to stoop even lower than that. You're using the imagery of a baby as a phony ass morality shield to protect your ideologies. You're hoping that people join you in a putrid cry of fake tears for the rights of infants, meanwhile advocating that the choice you made to circumcise or not shouldn't be granted to other adults bringing children into this world. I would call you a hypocrite and a fraud, but that would be far to generous. Now beat it.

So I did, I guess I couldn't help myself.

Know what, I think you are pissed because you are on the losing side. Circumcision rates are falling and more circumcised guys (and their wives) are getting it. The tide is turning. Even on this site, the majority of circumcised guys prefer to be intact.

Thanks for the suggestion to "beat it" - I just did, it was wonderful!:wank:

 

[readytocum]

very intresting post, but chat with a college dude not long ago, and he said to me that that trend is reversing to cut???

 

[Sapien]

very intresting post, but chat with a college dude not long ago, and he said to me that that trend is reversing to cut???

I don't think so. Your avatar indicates you are from Montreal. French Canadians are definitely not into cutting. All of the Canadian province health care plans no longer cover circumcision. All of the stat reports show that circumcision is on the decline in North America (especially Canada). It is banned in public hospitals in Australia.

 

[mandoman]

Because circumcised men cannot orgasm properly without one. They are forever scarred, and now the future of the world hangs in the balance. If RIC is not ended soon, it is over.

Sargon, I kindly ask you to join the battle today. It's our only hope. And I will send you an anti-RIC t-shirt. I promise.:biggrin1:

Your sarcasm serves no purpose. There is no way that anyone could be making you feel less, when you have such a handsome, outsized war club hanging between your legs. Besides, everybody knows that 90% of sex takes place in your brain, anyway.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

So I did, I guess I couldn't help myself.

Yeah... rhetorically bigoted people tend not to be able to hide their heightened sense of phony morality or comprehend their own hypocrisies.

Know what, I think you are pissed because you are on the losing side. Circumcision rates are falling and more circumcised guys (and their wives) are getting it. The tide is turning. Even on this site, the majority of circumcised guys prefer to be intact.

Losing side of what, really? Circumcision is still legal regardless if the trend is dropping. Parents still have the choice to have their newborn boys circumcised or leave them intact. You still talk to me like I'm pro-circumcision and I'm not advocating for either. For the ten millionth time, I'm advocating for the parent's right to choose just like you are able to make a similar choice. And since majority rule doesn't dictate legislation, cheering that you're winning something here is pathetic. But I guess you need something to cling onto for hope, so keep swinging on that fictional foreskin of truthiness.

Case in point, wanna know something else that is dropping in this nation? Teenage pregnancy... a much more serious issue. As of 2008 it was at a 30 year low. However, you don't see anti-abortionists trying to insinuate that this will eventually lead to the reversal of Roe v. Wade. But here you are, trying to spin news about a decline in infant circumcision to some kind of declaration that suggests the procedure will be banned. Seriously, how stupid are you?

Thanks for the suggestion to "beat it" - I just did, it was wonderful!:wank:

You know, I could really make a rude comment here about an orgasm and a picture of an infant. But the fact of you masturbating to your own bigotry is sickening enough to most people.

Are you finished, hypocrite? Or do you want to turn on more of your mundane defense mechanisms and act as if your foreskin is going to get you through this debate? Your call.

 

[Sapien]

Seriously, how stupid are you?

Let's see.

A little less than you!

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Let's see.

A little less than you!

Apparently, sight is also not one of your better traits.
Are you finished?

 

[D_Stavelay Strappon]

Congratulations for leaving your boys intact. They will thank you for it.

 

[JTalbain]

Been awhile, but it seems the landscape looks about the same. Sometimes, I think we could gain enough respect from Al-Queda to end their hostilities against us if we just showed them these forums. It downright feels like Jihad in here occassionally.

Until the law changes and government wants to assume full duties of every parent, then the choice to circumcise should remain for parents to deliberate on.

That's one hell of a slippery slope, and it is one very often cited. There is a gigantic difference in allowing parents to choose nonmedical amputation of a body part for their child and having the government assume full duties of every parent. In the medical field, there is not a single procedure that can be done on children, with or without parental consent, that is not firmly based in medical knowledge and experience except for circumcision. As the article that was quoting the 33% statistic stated, the American Academy of Pediatrics has stated there is not enough evidence to support routinely circumcising children.

If there is no reason medically to do so, and no reason for the child's well being to do so, under what banner exactly should parents be allowed to circumcise their children under the status quo? The truth is, circumcision is actually an oddity under the law. Every other procedure of routine medical prevention via amputation has been ended (removal of tonsils, removal of appendix, etc.). Any other nonmedical amputation (done in the name of "raising your children the way you see fit" or otherwise) would be illegal. Circumcision is really the odd man out as far as medical procedures go.

Do you really feel that the status quo is the only stable status under which our society can operate? If circumcising minors was illegal now, and some people were trying to make it legal using only the literature that currently exists, would the reverse be true? Would it cause an irreversible slide into a society where parents could cut off whatever parts they wished from their children? Both a circumcising and noncircumcising population are stable archetypes, but circumcision being illegal would be more in line with the rest of our society's values. Why do you feel it should be treated differently?

Abortion is something that you would think would be staunchly supported by anti-circ folks, considering their stance on human rights, particularly those of infants. But alas they believe that abortion, an action infinitely darker than RIC, is not one of those rights. An existing child is not even given the right to live - talk about a most irreversible decision! In their logic, a mother who chooses to remove her infant son's foreskin is a mutilator and a human rights violator. Well, following that same logic, she is also a murderer if she aborts her baby for non-life- threatening reasons.

This is a gross simplification of the abortion debate because it ignores the aspect of the woman's choice in what happens to her body. BOTH sides need to be considered for that argument. And for the record, I would never give consent to have a child of mine aborted.

Also, there's a difference between ownership and being held responsible. The words "responsible" and "ownership" are not synonymous, so the interchanging of the two is vehemently disingenuous of you. I'd appreciate if you would be a little more honest with your assessments and refrain from using fear mongered rhetoric to get your point across. Regardless of your horrible twists of statements, the fact still remains that parents are responsible for the well being of the children they bring into this world. That means they should be allowed to pursue any legal means to ensure that if they choose to. End of story.

This is the exact reason why people against RIC push to get it made illegal. Believe it or not, they actually agree with you. In fact, many of the accusations you make against those who oppose the legality of circumcising minors are a mirror image of their railing against the medical profession. They feel that choosing to advocate the procedure, or even to not give an opinion on it, is an outrage and intellectually dishonest. Choosing to admit there is not enough evidence to perform a procedure for non medical reasons, when it would otherwise be in violation of many medical standards, but then keeping silent while parents have it done anyway because it makes them feel better about themselves (and gets you paid) is exactly that. Dishonest and an outrage.

Parents should be able to choose any means available to help their children, but it is the responsibility of the medical community to provide adequete guidance so they can do so. With the literature available, and their own stance on the matter, they are not fulfilling this responsibility by allowing non-medical circumcisions to be performed.

Case in point, wanna know something else that is dropping in this nation? Teenage pregnancy... a much more serious issue. As of 2008 it was at a 30 year low. However, you don't see anti-abortionists trying to insinuate that this will eventually lead to the reversal of Roe v. Wade. But here you are, trying to spin news about a decline in infant circumcision to some kind of declaration that suggests the procedure will be banned. Seriously, how stupid are you?

Because only teenagers get abortions.
Seriously though, it's actually a logical extension of other anti-RIC arguments. Medical evidence does not support RIC, but circumcision being good is ingrained in our culture, so the procedure is legal where it might otherwise not be. It is a logical extrapolation to say that if the support is no longer found in culture, that the procedure will cease to be legal.

 

[gordonlee]

I was uncircumcised up until the age of 18. I requested it be done. My frenulum was a bit tight on my foreskin so pulling my foreskin over my head would be a little hurtful for me, not to mention if my glans were to come in contact with anything without the foreskin covering it, the feeling would be awkward due to the sensitivity. Besides in the u.s. The majority of women (white women in particular) prefer cut cocks. Sometimes uncut dicks are even ridiculed. By the way, there is absolutely no difference in pleasure between cut and uncut dicks when it comes to sex, that's a load of bs.

You state that "if my glans were to come in contact with anything without the foreskin covering it, the feeling would be awkward due to the sensitivity."

Now that you are cut, do you have the same issues since your glans is rubbing against your clothing all day?

If not, then you've lost sensitivity.

Also, how long ago were you cut? It takes a few decades before the glans has become so keratinized that you lose all sensitivity which makes for a greatly diminished sexual experience.

So if you are claiming "there is absolutely no difference in pleasure between cut and uncut dicks when it comes to sex, that's a load of bs" and you haven't had your glans exposed for at least 30 years... just give it time and you'll be amending that last statement.

 

[deleted15807]

just give it time and you'll be amending that last statement.

In other words you have no proof. You're just peddling fear...'you'll see in a few decades I'll be right'.

 

[darkbond007]

You state that "if my glans were to come in contact with anything without the foreskin covering it, the feeling would be awkward due to the sensitivity."

Now that you are cut, do you have the same issues since your glans is rubbing against your clothing all day?

If not, then you've lost sensitivity.

Also, how long ago were you cut? It takes a few decades before the glans has become so keratinized that you lose all sensitivity which makes for a greatly diminished sexual experience.

So if you are claiming "there is absolutely no difference in pleasure between cut and uncut dicks when it comes to sex, that's a load of bs" and you haven't had your glans exposed for at least 30 years... just give it time and you'll be amending that last statement.

No...

Sensitivity when flaccid is different that sexual sensitivity when erect. MUCH different in fact. Equating the two is the gravest mistake most anti-circ individuals make and they do not correlate whatsoever.

 

[mandoman]

Seriously, though, there are more guys who are circumcised at birth who report insensitivity when they are older. Almost nobody who is circumcised later in life reports it. A few uncut men report it as well.

 

[JTalbain]

No...

Sensitivity when flaccid is different that sexual sensitivity when erect. MUCH different in fact. Equating the two is the gravest mistake most anti-circ individuals make and they do not correlate whatsoever.

I suppose the older guys who need physical stimulation in order to become erect in the first place are just expected to suck it up, eh?

 

[Peter20]

No...

Sensitivity when flaccid is different that sexual sensitivity when erect. MUCH different in fact. Equating the two is the gravest mistake most anti-circ individuals make and they do not correlate whatsoever.

I agree. A friend of me who has been circumcised when he was 17 claimed that there was no lost of sensitivity.

 

[JTalbain]

In other words you have no proof. You're just peddling fear...'you'll see in a few decades I'll be right'.

I believe that this is actually based off of studies showing keratinization of the glans occurring over the course of decades rather than immediately, borrowing from the observed experiences of others. I'll grant you that many other people report no change, but this is mitigated by some thinking any desensitization is due to age, or a host of other factors. With so many variables involved it's no wonder people can't see eye to eye on this.

I find it most ironic that this argument always seems to boil down a question of choice, regardless of which side you take. Either it's the parent's choice to raise their children however they want, or it's the individuals choice due to right of self-determination. It's actually the latter that is why I think children should be left intact. They're the ones that have to live with the choice, not the parents. They may not ever realize what it is like to be intact if they are cut at birth, so many people will say "No harm, no foul.", but I think that, given the lack of compelling evidence for circumcision's necessity, it should be "No benefit, no procedure."

 

[JTalbain]

Here's actually a hypothetical situation that just occurred to me that could have the same arguments applied to it, albeit more directly and clearly: skin bleaching. Hear me out, and please try to view this in the tone which it is intended. Don't think I actually believe it is a good idea.

Say you are a black person, and you are living in an area that is very racist. Most of the population is white and people of color are routinely beaten up, harassed, mugged, or killed.

You have a child. Wanting the best for your child, you decide that you will take him to the doctor to have his skin bleached. To all outward appearances, he will be caucasian. About the only think that would happen negatively of a physical nature will be the increased vulnerability to sunburn, but they make sunblock for that.

Now, given the fact that most people are fairly attached to their ethnicity as part of their identity, is it wrong to have the child's skin bleached, despite the fact that you are protecting him from possible dangers?

Does your answer change depending on the age of the child?

Does your answer change if your skin is bleached as well?

Does your answer change if there is a history of the procedure being performed, and many of the recipients of the "benefits" express disgust and anger at the choice being made for them?

 

[Hoss]

Here's actually a hypothetical situation that just occurred to me that could have the same arguments applied to it, albeit more directly and clearly: skin bleaching. Hear me out, and please try to view this in the tone which it is intended. Don't think I actually believe it is a good idea.

Say you are a black person, and you are living in an area that is very racist. Most of the population is white and people of color are routinely beaten up, harassed, mugged, or killed.

You have a child. Wanting the best for your child, you decide that you will take him to the doctor to have his skin bleached. To all outward appearances, he will be caucasian. About the only think that would happen negatively of a physical nature will be the increased vulnerability to sunburn, but they make sunblock for that.

Now, given the fact that most people are fairly attached to their ethnicity as part of their identity, is it wrong to have the child's skin bleached, despite the fact that you are protecting him from possible dangers?

Does your answer change depending on the age of the child?

Does your answer change if your skin is bleached as well?

Does your answer change if there is a history of the procedure being performed, and many of the recipients of the "benefits" express disgust and anger at the choice being made for them?

There's a huge difference between discussing a foreskin/circumcision and deplorable acts based on skin color. How many have you met and heard about that were beaten, mugged and killed because they'd been circumcised or hadn't been?