Circumcision Benefits Outweigh Risks, CDC Says

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2014 8:06 PM GMT
    New guidelines, the jury is still out on this gay mens hot topic but not surprised to see cutting rate fall from 80% in the 60's to 50% today, you can blame religion (again) for circumcision in the first place. You now have a 50% chance of meeting a young guy under age 30, or hooking up with a guy who is uncut


    https://www.yahoo.com/health/circumcision-benefits-outweigh-risks-cdc-says-104161436012.html
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 02, 2014 8:13 PM GMT
    Apparently they don't consider mutilating someone against their will to be a risk in and of itself. I think it's psychologically damaging, considering how pissed off many men are about this.icon_mad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2014 8:30 PM GMT
    HottJoe saidApparently they don't consider mutilating someone against their will to be a risk in and of itself. I think it's psychologically damaging, considering how pissed off many men are about this.icon_mad.gif



    Religion has influenced (brainwashed) many about many things, including the medical community (a.k. abortion, right to life, procreation, doctor assist suicide, end of life, when life begins, transgender-ism, intersex, sexual orientation, circumcision-male-female..etc)

    They have been obsessed with sex (the control of everyone(s) for generations upon generations. Being born with a fore skin was/is our human male design but treated like a birth defect by the religious community.

    As I said, the jury is still out, Being cut, I just stock up on lube icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2014 7:34 PM GMT
    circumcision is easy on a none consenting child. If the procedure were illegal on children i bet un circumcised 18year old men would all be jonesing to have the procedure done later in life.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2014 7:49 PM GMT
    HottJoe saidApparently they don't consider mutilating someone against their will to be a risk in and of itself. I think it's psychologically damaging, considering how pissed off many men are about this.icon_mad.gif



    They're likely pissed off because they're told they should be pissed off. And you're "thinking" it's psychologically damaging means nothing and isn't factual. It reduces STD infections including HIV, penile cancer and tract infections. Infants recover quickly but grown men heal much more slowly so letting people do it as adults isn't a great option. There are many men right here on RJ who have had it done as adults and 100% of them say they are glad they did it, even though it was painful. You're allowing your foreskin fetish to overshadow science.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2014 8:05 PM GMT
    pellaz saidcircumcision is easy on a none consenting child. If the procedure were illegal on children i bet un circumcised 18year old men would all be jonesing to have the procedure done later in life.

    You do know there are far many uncut men out there who are quite happy with what they've got and have no intention of being cut. I don't know on what basis you are making a bet given that uncut men outnumber cut men by a very large number. If being uncut deemed so risky, by your logic uncut men would have been lining up to get cut. Alas, that isn't the case and it isn't going to happen in any near future.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 03, 2014 8:21 PM GMT
    Scruffypup said
    HottJoe saidApparently they don't consider mutilating someone against their will to be a risk in and of itself. I think it's psychologically damaging, considering how pissed off many men are about this.icon_mad.gif



    They're likely pissed off because they're told they should be pissed off. And you're "thinking" it's psychologically damaging means nothing and isn't factual. It reduces STD infections including HIV, penile cancer and tract infections. Infants recover quickly but grown men heal much more slowly so letting people do it as adults isn't a great option. There are many men right here on RJ who have had it done as adults and 100% of them say they are glad they did it, even though it was painful. You're allowing your foreskin fetish to overshadow science.

    If the discussion was female genital mutilation, the outrage would be supported. Men who resent being mutilated are ridiculed and often suffer the humiliation in silence.

    Personally, I wish I hadn't been mutilated, and just because some geeks are happy with being short changed in sexual pleasure doesn't mean I have to accept the barbaric practice.

    The CDC is also full of shit. Their studies are based on stds rates in Africa where there are perhaps larger hygienic issues that wouldn't be a concern elsewhere.

    Also, the idea that circumcision prevent Stds is bullshit; you still have to wear a condom either way.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2014 8:22 PM GMT
    __morphic__ said
    pellaz saidcircumcision is easy on a none consenting child. If the procedure were illegal on children i bet un circumcised 18year old men would all be jonesing to have the procedure done later in life.

    You do know there are far many uncut men out there who are quite happy with what they've got and have no intention of being cut. I don't know on what basis you are making a bet given that uncut men outnumber cut men by a very large number. If being uncut deemed so risky, by your logic uncut men would have been lining up to get cut. Alas, that isn't the case and it isn't going to happen in any near future.



    No matter what the studies show, you'll probably never see adult men lined up to be circumcised because the healing process is much more painful as an adult.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2014 8:24 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    Scruffypup said
    HottJoe saidApparently they don't consider mutilating someone against their will to be a risk in and of itself. I think it's psychologically damaging, considering how pissed off many men are about this.icon_mad.gif



    They're likely pissed off because they're told they should be pissed off. And you're "thinking" it's psychologically damaging means nothing and isn't factual. It reduces STD infections including HIV, penile cancer and tract infections. Infants recover quickly but grown men heal much more slowly so letting people do it as adults isn't a great option. There are many men right here on RJ who have had it done as adults and 100% of them say they are glad they did it, even though it was painful. You're allowing your foreskin fetish to overshadow science.

    If the discussion was female genital mutilation, the outrage would be supported. Men who resent being mutilated are ridiculed and often suffer the humiliation in silence.

    Personally, I wish I hadn't been mutilated, and just because some geeks are happy with being short changed in sexual pleasure doesn't mean I have to accept the barbaric practice.

    The CDC is also full of shit. Their studies are based on stds rates in Africa where there are perhaps larger hygienic issues that wouldn't be a concern elsewhere.

    Also, the idea that circumcision prevent Stds is bullshit; you still have to wear a condom either way.



    Oh please. The moment you compared female genital mutilation (which truly IS mutilation) with male circumcision, you've lost all credibility to speak on the subject. You've just shown your ignorance.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 03, 2014 8:25 PM GMT
    Scruffypup said
    HottJoe said
    Scruffypup said
    HottJoe saidApparently they don't consider mutilating someone against their will to be a risk in and of itself. I think it's psychologically damaging, considering how pissed off many men are about this.icon_mad.gif



    They're likely pissed off because they're told they should be pissed off. And you're "thinking" it's psychologically damaging means nothing and isn't factual. It reduces STD infections including HIV, penile cancer and tract infections. Infants recover quickly but grown men heal much more slowly so letting people do it as adults isn't a great option. There are many men right here on RJ who have had it done as adults and 100% of them say they are glad they did it, even though it was painful. You're allowing your foreskin fetish to overshadow science.

    If the discussion was female genital mutilation, the outrage would be supported. Men who resent being mutilated are ridiculed and often suffer the humiliation in silence.

    Personally, I wish I hadn't been mutilated, and just because some geeks are happy with being short changed in sexual pleasure doesn't mean I have to accept the barbaric practice.

    The CDC is also full of shit. Their studies are based on stds rates in Africa where there are perhaps larger hygienic issues that wouldn't be a concern elsewhere.

    Also, the idea that circumcision prevent Stds is bullshit; you still have to wear a condom either way.



    Oh please. The moment you compared female genital mutilation (which truly IS mutilation) with male circumcision, you've lost all credibility to speak on the subject. You've just shown your ignorance.

    How is it any different, really?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2014 8:27 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]Scruffypup said... the healing process is much more painful as an adult. [/quote]it hurts the infant very much
  • Destinharbor

    Posts: 4435

    Dec 03, 2014 8:30 PM GMT
    Still, looks better....
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 03, 2014 8:32 PM GMT
    pellaz said[quote][cite]Scruffypup said... the healing process is much more painful as an adult.
    it hurts the infant very much[/quote]
    He'd kill anyone who abuses a puppy, but mutilating the genitalia of male infants is a-okay!icon_rolleyes.gif

    Sorry, Scruffy, I really resent this fucked up barbaric agenda, and the bullshit espoused by the CDC. It's torture to mutilate a baby. We just don't have memories of it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2014 8:33 PM GMT
    __morphic__ said
    pellaz saidcircumcision is easy on a none consenting child. If the procedure were illegal on children i bet un circumcised 18year old men would all be jonesing to have the procedure done later in life.

    You do know there are far many uncut men out there who are quite happy with what they've got and have no intention of being cut. I don't know on what basis you are making a bet given that uncut men outnumber cut men by a very large number. If being uncut deemed so risky, by your logic uncut men would have been lining up to get cut. Alas, that isn't the case and it isn't going to happen in any near future.

    Duh! I understood you wrong pellaz. Sorry!
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 03, 2014 8:36 PM GMT
    Destinharbor saidStill, looks better....

    There's no accounting for poor taste... Or the ability to brainwash people with outrageous body modification as a fashion statement.

    My main problem is that I don't think the choice should be made on behalf of the men it's done to when they are babies. It's not like we can undo our parents' lifetime decision to mutilate us.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2014 8:37 PM GMT
    Destinharbor saidStill, looks better....

    cut or uncut?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2014 8:38 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    Scruffypup said
    HottJoe said
    Scruffypup said
    HottJoe saidApparently they don't consider mutilating someone against their will to be a risk in and of itself. I think it's psychologically damaging, considering how pissed off many men are about this.icon_mad.gif



    They're likely pissed off because they're told they should be pissed off. And you're "thinking" it's psychologically damaging means nothing and isn't factual. It reduces STD infections including HIV, penile cancer and tract infections. Infants recover quickly but grown men heal much more slowly so letting people do it as adults isn't a great option. There are many men right here on RJ who have had it done as adults and 100% of them say they are glad they did it, even though it was painful. You're allowing your foreskin fetish to overshadow science.

    If the discussion was female genital mutilation, the outrage would be supported. Men who resent being mutilated are ridiculed and often suffer the humiliation in silence.

    Personally, I wish I hadn't been mutilated, and just because some geeks are happy with being short changed in sexual pleasure doesn't mean I have to accept the barbaric practice.

    The CDC is also full of shit. Their studies are based on stds rates in Africa where there are perhaps larger hygienic issues that wouldn't be a concern elsewhere.

    Also, the idea that circumcision prevent Stds is bullshit; you still have to wear a condom either way.



    Oh please. The moment you compared female genital mutilation (which truly IS mutilation) with male circumcision, you've lost all credibility to speak on the subject. You've just shown your ignorance.

    How is it any different, really?



    Male circumcision almost never leads to long-term medical consequences while FGM creates severe female urogenital problems. Also, FGM is done as a way for men to control women and their sexuality. Male circumcision is not.

    Despite what the foreskin-worshipers may say, male circumcision and FGM are in no way equivalent so please stop comparing the two and using the term "mutilated." It's an insult to the thousands of women who truly are "mutilated" each year.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2014 8:40 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    pellaz said[quote][cite]Scruffypup said... the healing process is much more painful as an adult.
    it hurts the infant very much

    He'd kill anyone who abuses a puppy, but mutilating the genitalia of male infants is a-okay![/quote]



    So now you're going to compare abusing a puppy to a common (scientifically proven beneficial) medical procedure to abusing a puppy? This is exactly why you get labeled as the resident drama queen. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 03, 2014 8:46 PM GMT
    Scruffypup said
    HottJoe said
    Scruffypup said
    HottJoe said
    Scruffypup said
    HottJoe saidApparently they don't consider mutilating someone against their will to be a risk in and of itself. I think it's psychologically damaging, considering how pissed off many men are about this.icon_mad.gif



    They're likely pissed off because they're told they should be pissed off. And you're "thinking" it's psychologically damaging means nothing and isn't factual. It reduces STD infections including HIV, penile cancer and tract infections. Infants recover quickly but grown men heal much more slowly so letting people do it as adults isn't a great option. There are many men right here on RJ who have had it done as adults and 100% of them say they are glad they did it, even though it was painful. You're allowing your foreskin fetish to overshadow science.

    If the discussion was female genital mutilation, the outrage would be supported. Men who resent being mutilated are ridiculed and often suffer the humiliation in silence.

    Personally, I wish I hadn't been mutilated, and just because some geeks are happy with being short changed in sexual pleasure doesn't mean I have to accept the barbaric practice.

    The CDC is also full of shit. Their studies are based on stds rates in Africa where there are perhaps larger hygienic issues that wouldn't be a concern elsewhere.

    Also, the idea that circumcision prevent Stds is bullshit; you still have to wear a condom either way.



    Oh please. The moment you compared female genital mutilation (which truly IS mutilation) with male circumcision, you've lost all credibility to speak on the subject. You've just shown your ignorance.

    How is it any different, really?



    Male circumcision almost never leads to long-term medical consequences while FGM creates severe female urogenital problems. Also, FGM is done as a way for men to control women and their sexuality. Male circumcision is not.

    Despite what the foreskin-worshipers may say, male circumcision and FGM are in no way equivalent so please stop comparing the two and using the term "mutilated." It's an insult to the thousands of women who truly are "mutilated" each year.

    Sorry, but I consider it a permanent mutilation, and you're insulting me by saying that's it's an innocuous medical procedure. It's just as bad as female genital mutilation. It's sick and perverted.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 03, 2014 8:47 PM GMT
    Scruffypup said
    HottJoe said
    pellaz said[quote][cite]Scruffypup said... the healing process is much more painful as an adult.
    it hurts the infant very much

    He'd kill anyone who abuses a puppy, but mutilating the genitalia of male infants is a-okay!




    So now you're going to compare abusing a puppy to a common (scientifically proven beneficial) medical procedure to abusing a puppy? This is exactly why you get labeled as the resident drama queen. icon_rolleyes.gif[/quote]
    Yes, I am. You act like babies don't suffer from the procedure, which is a lie.
  • Destinharbor

    Posts: 4435

    Dec 03, 2014 8:52 PM GMT
    __morphic__ said
    Destinharbor saidStill, looks better....

    cut or uncut?

    Cut.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 03, 2014 9:03 PM GMT
    Most American men over a certain age are cut (including me), but the numbers have been rapidly dropping for two decades, and now only a little over half of males born in the US are circumcised.

    My guess is that the procedure will become more obscure and frowned upon, except for in certain religious circles... Which is funny because they're correcting God's handiwork.

    Facepalm.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2014 9:18 PM GMT
    HottJoe saidMost American men over a certain age are cut (including me), but the numbers have been rapidly dropping for two decades, and now only a little over half of males born in the US are circumcised.

    My guess is that the procedure will become more obscure and frowned upon, except for in certain religious circles... Which is funny because they're correcting God's handiwork.

    Facepalm.

    Yeah. Also, right now there is a stigma associated with being uncut in USA. Uncut guys are seen as guys carrying dirty and stinky dick. Hopefully, with the drop in the rate of circumcison that stigma will slowly go away.
  • Destinharbor

    Posts: 4435

    Dec 03, 2014 9:40 PM GMT
    __morphic__ said
    HottJoe saidMost American men over a certain age are cut (including me), but the numbers have been rapidly dropping for two decades, and now only a little over half of males born in the US are circumcised.

    My guess is that the procedure will become more obscure and frowned upon, except for in certain religious circles... Which is funny because they're correcting God's handiwork.

    Facepalm.

    Yeah. Also, right now there is a stigma associated with being uncut in USA. Uncut guys are seen as guys carrying dirty and stinky dick. Hopefully, with the drop in the rate of circumcison that stigma will slowly go away.

    I don't think that's the viewpoint of most American men. Just lack of familiarity. And a preference for cut since that's all they've ever known and simply prefer the cut look. When I met my partner, who is uncut, I had to learn that there are differences in how a lot of things are done. The sensitivities seem higher but some things a cut guy loves is too much or even painful for uncut.

    I met a cut Dutch guy on a nude gay beach a couple of months ago. Maybe 45 years old. He volunteered he was uncut until about ten years ago. Just liked the "clean" look so he got cut. Laughed that it was painful but he was glad he did it. I wish I'd asked him about the relative sensitivity.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2014 9:47 PM GMT


    Hmmm...comparing female circumcision isn't an accurate comparison. Female circumcision = cutting off your penis.