The Foreskin and Chris's Ass Thread

[JU 199]

... Are you guys seriously having an intense debate in Off-Topic?

It's about foreskin. There's nothing more important!

 

[*Asterisk*]

... Are you guys seriously having an intense debate in Off-Topic?

Similar threads posted in other boards were locked within the same day they were made at best.

This thread's already lasted from Sunday to Wednesday. That's eternity in foreskin thread times.

 

[CatParty]

This thread's already lasted from Sunday to Wednesday. That's eternity in foreskin thread times.

ya usually @Watcher complains about it since he's triggered by circumcision

 

[LordAzazel]

Personally, I would be fine if all the witch doctors and Islamofascists wanted to do was a hood removal. The clitoral hood's the female equivalent of the male foreskin anyway, and like the foreskin, really doesn't serve any purpose other than to get infected. But I've yet to here of any FGM performers advocate just the removal of the hood. As you can see on page 47 of this report (or, if you're looking at the PDF page number, page 55) the overwhelming majority perform either a removal of the clitoris and large chunks of external genitalia, all external genitalia, or what I mentioned before while sewing the wound together.

I just told you about one: The AAP advocated not even the removal of the hood, only a symbolic circumcision. This was shot down due to popular opinion being against it.
In South East Asia, they indeed only remove (part of) the clitoral hood (http://theislamicmonthly.com/a-tiny-cut-female-circumcision-in-south-east-asia/).

As I said, you only hear about the worst cases of FGM, because other cultures are scary! And wrong!

Food for thought: What are the benifits of FGM?
Answer: We don't know, since it would be unethical to perform research on this.
Which leaves us with the question: Why do we know the benefits of MGM?
Answer: Because we decided that because we do it, it's fine to perform the experiments.

I'm a proponent for genital integrity for all.

I have many reasons. But the biggest one is that the risks of waiting are greater than the risks of complications of the procedure when performed on infants using local anesthesia, or even without using local anesthesia. Penile cancer, for instance, is not a common illness, but it does have a higher chance of happening and leading to a fatal or mutilatory outcome than the risks of a circumcision procedure, and circumcision reduces your chances of contracting it to essentially zero. Hell, the risks of being put under general anesthesia for any procedure are higher than the risks of circumcision as a child under local anesthetic.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16429216
7% of the circumcised children suffered from meatal stenosis in this study. I could, if I'd hoped to convince you, look up the rates of complication for other common side effects of circumcision?
What's the incidence rate of penile cancer? less than 1 case per 100,000?
Let's remove toenails too! Nobody is using those anyway!

The human body is quite flawed, and the foreskin is not the only part which serves no function other than to get infected. The appendix and wisdom teeth have the same problems as well, and if there was a way to remove them or prevent them from coming to be that could be performed on an infant that had a lower risk of complications than being put under general anesthesia as an adult, I'd advocate performing those operations as well.

...you seriously argue the foreskin has no function? What about, I don't know, natural lubricant, lots of nerves you're missing and so on?
And why, say, do most mammals have some kind of sheath for their penis?
I'm also wondering why you're comparing babies with local anesthesia and adults with general anesthesia.

Something doesn't have to be epidemic to be a medical problem. UTIs are a pain, but they won't kill you. Phimosis is a pain, but it won't kill you. A higher risk of STDs is a pain, but you can help counter that by being careful. Penile cancer sucks, but it's not particularly common. The risks that come with not being circumcised aren't the same as the risks you get when you take medical advice from an Alex Jones or a Kent Hovind, but they're still there. You saying this is like saying that because Europeans have higher rates of alcohol consumptions than North Africans but have a longer life expectency, drinking must raise your life expectancy.

You misunderstood. I'll repeat, if as the article claimed 50% of intact guys will encounter issues with their foreskin in America, why in Europe this isn't so?
If you're saying that results from one continent cannot be extrapolated to another, congrats, you just disproved most articles that claim circumcision prevents HIV.

Plus, when you add this insane stigma to the procedure, you make people feel like freaks when they actually do need it by the time an issue comes up when they're an adult even though the stigma is completely unwarranted.

Claiming that you shouldn't cut limbs from healthy babies adds to the stigma of amputees!

This is really autistic and you've cited absolutely nothing in this part of your post to boot. What the hell are you going on about here?

Well, if you'd like a link: http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/info-forcedretraction.html
But I'd say it's clear that if Europe has much lower circumcision rates and yet less infections in their intact population, something you Americans are doing is very very wrong.

 

[Magpie]

I'm shocked this thread has gone on as long as it has. In my opinion conversation should have been cut off a long time ago.

why is this being taken so seriously though

 

[Conrix]

I'm shocked this thread has gone on as long as it has. In my opinion conversation should have been cut off a long time ago.

why is this being taken so seriously though

Because whose dick looks like what is serious business around here.

 

[*Asterisk*]

I just told you about one: The AAP advocated not even the removal of the hood, only a symbolic circumcision. This was shot down due to popular opinion being against it.
In South East Asia, they indeed only remove (part of) the clitoral hood (http://theislamicmonthly.com/a-tiny-cut-female-circumcision-in-south-east-asia/).

As I said, you only hear about the worst cases of FGM, because other cultures are scary! And wrong!

Again, I've never considered a hood reduction or removal to count as FGM, and neither should anybody else. And "only hear about the worst cases" is not a one off detail when said "worst cases" number in the tens of millions when talking about the retrograde nativists of Somalia rather than the significantly more enlightened and progressive people of Malay-Indonesia.

Food for thought: What are the benifits of FGM?
Answer: We don't know, since it would be unethical to perform research on this.
Which leaves us with the question: Why do we know the benefits of MGM?
Answer: Because we decided that because we do it, it's fine to perform the experiments.

I'm a proponent for genital integrity for all.

Except this isn't true at all. There have been thousands of women who have had their clitoral hood reduced or removed in the US alone, and hundreds have been monitored and surveyed for their response to the procedure. Like male foreskin removal, it's low risk, low in complications, has quite a few benefits, and it can even be performed on infants with a local anesthetic rather than on adults under a general anesthetic.

7% of the circumcised children suffered from meatal stenosis in this study. I could, if I'd hoped to convince you, look up the rates of complication for other common side effects of circumcision?
What's the incidence rate of penile cancer? less than 1 case per 100,000?

The Van Howe study you cited has been quite thoroughly debunked. It's far from valuable to bring up.

Let's remove toenails too! Nobody is using those anyway!

I have had chunks of my toenails removed. They don't serve any real purpose either other than to get infected. Though the risks of having toenails are indeed much lower than the risks of having foreskin or an appendix, when complications do come up, they fucking suck.

...you seriously argue the foreskin has no function? What about, I don't know, natural lubricant, lots of nerves you're missing and so on?
And why, say, do most mammals have some kind of sheath for their penis?

I'm also wondering why you're comparing babies with local anesthesia and adults with general anesthesia.

Because local anesthesia is significantly safer than general anesthesia.

You misunderstood. I'll repeat, if as the article claimed 50% of intact guys will encounter issues with their foreskin in America, why in Europe this isn't so?

It is so. Lots of guys in Europe have dicks that look like this:

Spoiler: NSFW

People often just don't talk that much about it and just live with the discomfort and the problems because most people have historically been embarrassed when talking about sexual dysfunction.

If you're saying that results from one continent cannot be extrapolated to another, congrats, you just disproved most articles that claim circumcision prevents HIV.

I'm not saying that it doesn't. I'm saying you have to look at the bigger picture. Europe has significantly better infrastructure and medical facilities than North Africa, so you also have to consider how much that effects things like HIV rates.

That said. Even with a lot of these countries being shitboxes, Muslim countries generally have very low rates of HIV and AIDS. Pakistan has a significantly lower HIV rate than India. France and Austria have a hire rate than Algeria and Israel. Nepal and Thailand have a hire rate than the needle checkered heroin hellpits that are Iran and Afghanistan.

Claiming that you shouldn't cut limbs from healthy babies adds to the stigma of amputees!

This is an incredibly spergy sentence that has nothing to do with any of this argument. Unless you want to argue that the foreskin is a fucking limb. What's next? Earlobe integrity? Appendix pride?

Well, if you'd like a link: http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/info-forcedretraction.html
But I'd say it's clear that if Europe has much lower circumcision rates and yet less infections in their intact population, something you Americans are doing is very very wrong.

Ah, Doctors Opposing Circumcision. An organization packing so much intellectual power they have all of ONE doctor in their ranks. A doctor who is neither accredited in pediatrics nor male urology, but gynecology.

 

[JU 199]

It is so. Lots of guys in Europe have dicks that look like this:

Spoiler: NSFW

undefined

Did you have to type 'deformed penis' into google to get that?

Edit: On second thoughts, what did you have to type to get that?

 

[exball]

Can we reopen the thread about Chris' ass now?

 

[Yog-Sothoth]

Did you have to type 'deformed penis' into google to get that?

Edit: On second thoughts, what did you have to type to get that?

I would be scared to find out.

 

[Magpie]

Did you have to type 'deformed penis' into google to get that?

Edit: On second thoughts, what did you have to type to get that?

Maybe it was saved on his hard drive.

 

[JU 199]

@*Asterisk* Do you have an archive of dicks on your computer?

 

[José Mourinho]

This thread in a nutshell

 

[LordAzazel]

Did you have to type 'deformed penis' into google to get that?

Edit: On second thoughts, what did you have to type to get that?

What surprised me is that he knows what European dicks look like, even better than a real European.
It makes me wonder what kind of adventures he went on to find that out ~~~

But, he wins. Against such wonderful arguments like "I know what European dicks look like but I don't wanna give sources" I'm powerless.

I'll just leave the medical opinion here: http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Publicatie...rapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm

We'll see in 20 years who was right.

 

[*Asterisk*]

Did you have to type 'deformed penis' into google to get that?

Edit: On second thoughts, what did you have to type to get that?

Wikipedia's phimosis article.

If you're ever looking for a picture of the most horrible thing you can think of, be it a plague victim, a frostbitten foot, or a victim of Holdomor, (FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T CLICK ON THIS SHIT AT WORK) I'm almost positive you can find it on Wikimedia.

Plus, the human memory is just good in general at remembering the vile, the disquieting, the illegal, the transgressive, and the scatological. There's a reason Robert Fripp picked "California Guitarists Drop Acid Every Gig" as the mnemonic for his New Standard Tuning.

 

[JU 199]

If you're ever looking for a picture of the most horrible thing you can think of, be it a plague victim, a frostbitten foot, or a victim of Holdomor, (FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T CLICK ON THIS SHIT AT WORK) I'm almost positive you can find it on Wikimedia.

Plus, the human memory is just good in general at remembering the vile, the disquieting, the illegal, the transgressive, and the scatological. There's a reason Robert Fripp picked "California Guitarists Drop Acid Every Gig" as the mnemonic for his New Standard Tuning.

I'm not sure we needed to know this information. It has nothing to do with foreskins or circumcision.

What do you think about mandatory circumcision?

 

[*Asterisk*]

I'm not sure we needed to know this information. It has nothing to do with foreskins or circumcision.

You asked for it, and it's your thread anyway.

When I don't cite enough sources when debating this topic, I get told my points aren't well cited enough. When I do cite enough sources, people tell me I have too healthy an interest in dicks.

Now maybe it's just me, but maybe the problem goes deeper? Maybe too many people out there are just unwilling to discuss this topic in anything resembling a non-reactionary or non-spergy manner, and we should all just learn to actually look at the arguments from a merit and scientific based perspective rather than reaching out for the moral panic appeal?

What do you think about mandatory circumcision?

I don't think it should be mandatory. Just encouraged and not stigmatized, unless the complications go from being a nuisance to a problem like the patient having constant infection. Ultimately, it's the urologist's call. But since it's currently not mandatory in any country to my knowledge, this is a non-issue.

 

[exball]

But what about Chris' ass? Sometimes it's puffy, other times it looks square, discuss.

 

[JU 199]

You asked for it, and it's your thread anyway.

When I don't cite enough sources when debating this topic, I get told my points aren't well cited enough. When I do cite enough sources, people tell me I have too healthy an interest in dicks.

Now maybe it's just me, but maybe the problem goes deeper? Maybe too many people out there are just unwilling to discuss this topic in anything resembling a non-reactionary or non-spergy manner, and we should all just learn to actually look at the arguments from a merit and scientific based perspective rather than reaching out for the moral panic appeal?

You could have just said 'Wikipedia's phimosis article', but you went into autistic levels of detail for some bizarre reason.

 

[*Asterisk*]

But what about Chris' ass? Sometimes it's puffy, other times it looks square, discuss.

It's always square. The insects that live inside just make it look puffy on occasion.