(04-25-2017 07:21 AM)dfarr Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 06:12 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 10:28 PM)dfarr Wrote:  I've had a number of adult men complain about numbness after a circ. If you have an elective procedure done to your son based on HIV rates in sub-Saharan Africa then you need to re-evaluate your parental decision making.

So you (your son) aren't circumcised? It's been pretty much standard procedure for several decades now in the US. I don't care either way but I just wonder why you're so against it. As an adult... hell no, I wouldn't do it.

I'm against it because it's not necessary. Sure, it helps decrease STDs, but so does not putting your dick into nasty skanks. I just don't see how it's necessary to do a procedure on a one day old infant to reduce their possible STD rate. That's like removing their appendix at birth so that they don't get appendicitis.

As for phimosis, balanitis, and penile cancer, those are all prevented by taking a bath. Y'all do realize that I work in urology, so I literally do this for a living, right? To justify a pediatric surgery based on diseases that are prevented (mostly) by bathing just doesn't compute with me.

A good summary against it

No, neither of my sons were circumcised, nor was I or either of my brothers. It's just not medically necessary in infants.

Boys are famous for being meticulous bathers.

Their peckers get attention when they masturbate.

(04-25-2017 07:21 AM)dfarr Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 06:12 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 10:28 PM)dfarr Wrote:  I've had a number of adult men complain about numbness after a circ. If you have an elective procedure done to your son based on HIV rates in sub-Saharan Africa then you need to re-evaluate your parental decision making.

So you (your son) aren't circumcised? It's been pretty much standard procedure for several decades now in the US. I don't care either way but I just wonder why you're so against it. As an adult... hell no, I wouldn't do it.

I'm against it because it's not necessary. Sure, it helps decrease STDs, but so does not putting your dick into nasty skanks. I just don't see how it's necessary to do a procedure on a one day old infant to reduce their possible STD rate. That's like removing their appendix at birth so that they don't get appendicitis.

As for phimosis, balanitis, and penile cancer, those are all prevented by taking a bath. Y'all do realize that I work in urology, so I literally do this for a living, right? To justify a pediatric surgery based on diseases that are prevented (mostly) by bathing just doesn't compute with me.

A good summary against it

No, neither of my sons were circumcised, nor was I or either of my brothers. It's just not medically necessary in infants.

Well I did not know what field you worked in, so at least I can understand you r passion on the issue.

I disagree with your conclusion though.

Nasty skanks are not the only ones with STD's... Up to 75% of reproductive-age population has been infected with HPV.

(04-23-2017 06:50 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 04:45 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  What an awful practice.

Cultural enrichment and diversity... It's apparently our strength..

Making America stronger, one detached labia at a time.

As for the issue of circumcision, I think it should be a personal choice. My dad let me make the choice and when I turned 18 I elected to have the surgery.

Ended up with a hoody-frecker pecker and a really interesting watch band.