Weirdest hamster I've ever seen

[Wrath]

I think more are cut than not in the U.S., but that's my <i>personal</i> opinion. Most of the guys that I know who arent cut are latinos or guys who were born in another country.

[spidergecko]

Originally posted by Wrath
I think more are cut than not in the U.S., but that's my <i>personal</i> opinion. Most of the guys that I know who arent cut are latinos or guys who were born in another country.

About 80% in USA and about 7-10% in Europe. I can't find the link I got that from.

[Removed_2815]

Paulsreef, let's try this again, I will be forever in your debt if you could please show us the data that made you claim that "some babies had actually suffered heart attacks from the pain," that's all I'm asking. I have no doubt that babies have died in the 40's from sepsis or other non-heart attack related complications that may have been directly related to circumcision. Infection is a real threat with any operation. You stated that babies are having heart attacks from the pain and that Canada is banning the practice because of this. Are we going around in circles here? All I wanted is some information to back up your original claim, nothing more, nothing less... I've never heard of such a thing is all.
Ryan

[paulsreef]

Ryan, I'm working on it. My info comes from a friend that works in a Toronto hospital. Once I get the info I'll post it. In the meantime, be kind to your snake.
Paul.

[Removed_2815]

LOL! I always am.
I look forward to learning what you find out.
Best,
Ryan
P.S. I sent an e-mail to a friend, a pathologist at York Central Hospital, and he says that there is no documentation of myocardial infarction caused by circumcision that he is aware of, in any of the literature. And as far as Canada banning the procedure, nope, there's no truth in that either - but people like to talk and rumours get spread.

[Vengeance]

I had to be circumcised when I was 12 due to health reasons, NOT FUN! I would have preferred it done when I was young, although that one link is slightly disturbing.

[JAdkins2451]

I personally dont think there is anything wrong with not being uncircumsized. And I know when my sister haad her baby not to long ago she was contimplaiting getting it done she went to 2 diffrent doctors and both reccomend that she didnt get it. They would still do it but basically talked her out of it. And I remember seeing a TV program and the main reason for circumssion is that they belived if you cut it of it would be cleaner ie from diseases etc. Im not proffesional just my 2cents

[Siretsap]

Circumcision was mainly practiced back in the days cause mothers tought it would prevent the child from masturbating s often... Then came the reasons from the doctors that it made it cleaner and all...

Basically, today's reasons for circumcision is for religion and health reasons. There will always be a few who get it done cause they prefer it that way.

Anyhow, it is not true that it is less painfull when you are a child. It is just as painful, babies just don't have the facial expressions developped and the worsd to tell you it really f****** hurts. ;-)

[nita]

Personally would never do it to my child lets go about removing any other area of the body that is prone to cancer, stupid in my books. A lot of women I spoke to said it looked cuter that is why they were doing yeah, have you seen those poor babies the first few weeks after, definately not cute and I would never give a child "cosmetic" surgery. My sis had her son done cause daddy was done and he didn't want to explain why daddy looks different when trying to potty train. She couldn't change her sons diaper for 2 weeks with out crying when seeing what had been done to him, she couldnt' believe she had caused her son to go through that for what!!

PS..... Female circumcision is called inhumane also done for religeous reasons, but it is perfectly fine to cut out part of a males genitals Hmmmmmm. Doesn't make sense to me.

[Wrath]

So far, I'm opting to not do it to my kids. *shrugs* My best friend isnt cut and he sings praises about his pp. Hey did the word ***** get censored on another post?

*update* Oh my god it did! Haha. Geez.

I believe that circumcision used to be useful in preventing diseases back when running water and good personal hygiene were difficult to come by. And I agree with the post before this, it is genital mutilation and is an archaic concept.

[Removed_2815]

Originally posted by nita
Female circumcision is called inhumane also done for religeous reasons, but it is perfectly fine to cut out part of a males genitals Hmmmmmm. Doesn't make sense to me.

Bad comparison. Female circumcision, AKA clitoridectomy, AKA excision of the clitoris, is completely different as it is the surgical removal of the female sexual organ in its entirety. Since the clitoris is homologous to the pen1s, this comparison is only relevant if we were talking about the removal of the pen1s - which we're not... just the prepuce.
Ryan

edit: please excuse the use of "pen1s" but the correct, non-offensive anatomical term is being censored out.

[marisa]

"but the correct, non-offensive anatomical term is being censored out."

That's because people who ARE offensive have like to use it in a totally different context in the past

This topic has become um interesting. :|

Marisa

[chas*e]

Curcumcision is more of a useless semi-religious medical procedure....it was widespread in the past 200 years in the Judeo-Christian West .. Also people where told ..wrongly..that being un-cut was a cause of bladder and kidney infections ...It has become less popular now due to the greater education/knowledge of the general public in useless medical procedures....
PS Chicks like it anyway, as long as the best part wasn't thrown away when the operation took place..lol
As for the initial post and Pic...I love the little hairless bastards

Just to mention--- I am cut and I am sure they must have a cut too much off...not fair

[Removed_2815]

Originally posted by chas*e
Also people where told ..wrongly..that being un-cut was a cause of bladder and kidney infections ...It has become less popular now due to the greater education/knowledge of the general public in useless medical procedures....

From medicinenet.com:

What is the relationship between circumcision and urinary tract infections?

The incidence of urinary tract infections in male infants appears to be lower when circumcision is done in the newborn period. It was first reported in 1982 that males predominate among infants with urinary tract infections (whereas females predominate later in life) and that about 95% of the infected infant boys had not been circumcised. Studies in US Army hospitals involving more than 200,000 infant boys confirmed greater than a tenfold increase in urinary tract infections in uncircumcised male infants compared to those who had been circumcised.

What might this relationship between circumcision and urinary tract infections mean?

Circumcision prevents the growth of bacteria under the foreskin and this, in turn, protects male infants against urinary tract infection. The high incidence of urinary tract infections in uncircumcised boys has also been found to be accompanied by an increased incidence of other significant infections such as bacteremia (bacterial infection of the bloodstream) and meningitis (infection of the covering of the brain). The protective effect of circumcision may thus extend to a number of infectious diseases.

What is the relationship between circumcision and sexually transmitted diseases?

There is a higher risk of gonorrhea and inflammation of the urethra (the tube that carries the urine from the bladder outside) in uncircumcised men. It has also been reported that other sexually transmitted diseases (such as chancroid, syphilis, human papillomavirus, and herpes simplex virus type 2 infection) are more frequent in uncircumcised men.

What might this connection between circumcision and sexually transmitted diseases mean?

Circumcision prevents the growth under the foreskin of the agents that cause sexually transmitted diseases. Removal of the foreskin may provide some measure of protection from these diseases to males and their mates.

What is the correlation between sexually transmitted diseases and cancer of the cervix?

There is a strong connection between sexually transmitted diseases and cancer of the cervix. Human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 are strongly associated with cancer of the cervix. Herpes simplex virus type 2 has also been associated with cervical cancer.

The strongest predisposing factors in cervical cancer are a history of intercourse at an early age and multiple sexual partners. Cervical cancer is virtually unknown in nuns and virgins.

What might this relationship between lack of circumcision and cervical cancer mean?

Circumcision protects the mate from cancer of the cervix by removing the foreskin which harbors sexually transmitted viruses that promote this common form of female cancer.

What is the relationship between circumcision and cancer of the *****?

The predicted lifetime risk of cancer of the ***** in an uncircumcised man is 1 in 600 in the US. Cancer of the ***** carries a mortality rate as high as 25%. This cancer occurs almost exclusively in uncircumcised men. In five major research studies, no man who had been circumcised as a newborn developed cancer of the *****. Human papillomavirus types 16 and 18, which are sexually transmitted, are involved in cancer of the *****.

Link

[chas*e]

To beat this into the ground.........All things being equal there is no higher incidence of infection, sexual or otherwise if proper hygene is involved, ie..."clean the thing" .....